Dear Dgarretson: Do you own the MMC1/2 B&O cartridge?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: Nevermind, you don't have to reply my latest post.
Now, in good shape and only with the attitude to help and no report/reply need it either: this is only for you.
My advise is that you borrow home Tidal and Lindemann electronics, listen to both ( of course with your benchmark as you name it: FR source. ) and compare against what you own today. If what you have outperform Tidal/Lindemann then IMHO your system is in serious trouble. Anyway, this test can confirm if you are " seated " where you think you are.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: ++++ " T_Bone, you can imagine how it feels to be treated like this ... " +++++
before the thread I defend human dignity, my human dignity or other human dignity.
From sometime now this person was posting here ( and in other threads. ) some posts with a tone of gibe/taunt and till yesterday I was supported and try it to be polite with him but : enough is enough, yes as any one of you my patience has a limit that is different from your limits.
He knows exactly what I'm refering to. In the past he never act with me like in the last few months. I have nothing against him but that I don't have to support that kind of posts any more here or in other threads.
I appreciate all the persons as a human and what happen in Agon ( I mean discussions ) is only audio discussions where sometimes are really hot.
Even that this guy was posting what he posted I was worried about him on the nuclear accident on japan and I let him knowed.
Gentlemans, I explain all this because my post was not at " random ", there were IMHO good reasons to posted.
There are another persons on Agon that I know for sure I don't like them. Downunder is one of them but he ( till today ) always is " on line " with out try to make a " damage ", I know Downunder ( he likes me. ) and is fine with me.
There are other persons that I respect a lot like Halcro and Nandric that from my point of view already insult me in this thread when they posted several times that I don't post a cartridge alert when I'm bidding: they questioned my person integrity. I let go that time because I want it to figure why some persons in the last times are changing their " tone " with me. I revise several of my posts and other that my very " direct " subject attitudes or audio disagreements I can't find something that could provoque that attitude's changes. Of course maybe I'm wrong and only I have the culprit.
Maybe for some of you those posts in a gibe/taunt tone are non-important but for me are especially when comes one after other and then one more......
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
and Timeltel is no exception.
R. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " I am not suggesting specific brands for you, would never do. The ones you mentioned I either would not go for or cannot assess them at the time being. Again, don't get me wrong. From the distance only being able to see some units on our Audiogon pages you may get only a clue about one's systems capabilities. So maybe your modified Monos are Thor's Hammer... and I am completely wrong (error/mistake). " +++++
I know you are better than that. My suggestion is a in deep serious subject for your in deep consideration. I think that you can't understand yet the overall real subject behind my post. IMHO when you try to understand it and make something about you will know why I said " trying to help " ( I know you are not asking for any help but you like me. ).
My post to you was a serious and useful one it depends on your attitude about. There are IMHO good reasons for what I posted.
++++++ " From the distance only being able to see some units " +++++
certainly not me and I hope not you either because some of us are able to see a lot more than only " some units " and is your audio learning curve status ( on that speciifc subject ) the one that help you to see more than only units.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Silver mica caps?, I never had experiences with but due that are on RIAA circuit it has a main quality " sound " influence.
Btw, how much do you paid for your Silvaweld?.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
but good one with the Audio Technica, such is life.
R. |
Dear friends: Reading this thread: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1306982565&&&/What-are-your-favorite-phono-cartridges-
I counted ten posts between the 29 ( Jfrech latest one. ) total that speaks on MM/MI cartridges. Not bad at all it is around 35% and no one of us posted there yet.
IMHO the number of persons ( for various reasons, between them: un-expensive. ) ) that will own MM/MI cartridges will grow-up and I think that the MM/MI analog source alternative will be on disadvantage against what really can shows till phono stage designers really take care about and will design properly dedicated MM/MI phono stages with the options this alternative ask for.
Anyway, the alternative is really alive, even that I don't think that in the near future could even the success of the LOMC through the AHEE till this AHEE decide is worth$$$ to do it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Lewm: THak you, appreciated.
R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " live with the AT-7V over the Empires, the ZYX Universe, the Dynavector XV-1s, the AT-20SS and possibly even the Technics EPC-100Mk3 " +++++
I'm trying to understand your statement especially when you refer to the 20SS and Empire.
I know you put on sale the 20SS on February and sold it so you did not had the opportunity to compare the 20SS against the 7V at the same time. In the other side your 20SS came with a non-original stylus but an after market one that shows you its poor " pedigree ", something similar with the TK10ML that if I remember was not the MK2 edition. For the 4000D3 is important to note that the cartridge was designed to run at 100k along 150pf on total capacitance and you can match this in your system when the 7V is well system matched.
IMHO could be a little unfair for the other cartridges made comparisons with " unknow parameters ", more on this latter.
Regrads and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Around 18 months ago Dertonarm start the thread: " Establishing a common analog listening bias ".
He did it for very good reasons where I agree with him on the main thread subject. Unfortunately through that thread we did not achieved that very good, important and critical idea that could give all of us a precise and ceratin " environment " of what we report on audio items quality performance level through comparisons in between.
I posted ( between others. ) this as an example ( not the bible, only and example. ) of what Dertonarm was asking for:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&openflup&93&4#93
and here the Dertonarm answer to that post:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&openflup&96&4#96
IMHO and at least when we make cartridge comparisons could be useful that all of us could have a " small idea " what each one is talking about through those comparisons.
Having a " common listening bias " will permit that each one of us could confirm what each one of us are saying and understand the differences of what each one of us are listening.
This has nothing to " see " on what each one of us " like " or each one priorities but what is on the recordings/tracks we choosed for that " common listening bias ". IMHO if we can achieve that target here everything can be more easy and understable for all and I can tell you that could be less/lower " no-sense " disagreements.
I think too that that " common listening bias " subject could be enriched if we understand the whole listening process tests.
What mean I about?, well as many of you know I have a simple method/process for test not only cartridges but almost any audio item. In each audio item I test I follow step by step my listening test process, always. Through this process experiences I know exactly what to look for even the tone of the clicks/pops on the tracks used during the test process, this gives me a very good plattform to make audio item quality performance level judgements.
The process does not involve only the same tracks always but other same parameters like ( between others ): even the SPL on the audio items under comparisons, tests at different SPL at seat position, obviously the right set up including loading, etc, etc.
That's why I almost always report the different parameters where the audio items/cartridges were each one surrounded ( tonearm, headshell type, VTF, capacitance, SRA, tec, etc. ).
IMHO, that any one of us say this one is better than the other almost means nohing because does not exist a precise and certain " reference frame " where we could understand in better way to what other person is refering it, IMHO could be useful to give a more Objective " frame/means " to what we are talking about over those subjective opinions that we are so entilted.
I invite all of you to comment on the whole subject, to give ideas and participate to BUILD this Common Listening Bias.
Your Call!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Blueskiespbd: The comparison that made your dealer can't IMHO apply to the cartridge subject that's more complex than that.
Anyway, here is what you want it:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1311686843&/Clearaudio-Virtuoso-wood-
Btw, there are some great cartridges that the only way to put your hands on it is: second hand!.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Ct0517/Halcro: +++++ " Hi Henry - you said
“To me, the midrange is the 'sine qua non' of all audio (reproduced or live).
If the midrange is 'right', the rest are 'accessories'.......”
I totally agree with you. " +++++
I respect what both of you think on the subject but I disagree for very good reasons that I will explain latter ( I don't have time in this moment. ) IMHO there is a misunderstood on what happen live against what happen at home with reproduced audio.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " Yet you are apparently unable to 'remember' the sound of all your cartridges and previous equipment unless you have them actually playing in your current system? I can remember the sound DNA of all my previous cartridges stretching back 35 year.... " ++++
Two issues: I don't have your habilities about and second I try not give a " ligthly " opinion on any audio item: if I can I like to heard it " fresh " against what I'm making comparisons.
I trust is several of you opinions but everytime I had/have the opportunity I like to confirm " fresh " about.
It is not only that as you and everyone my system ( time to time ) improve due to changes " here and there " but that I " fine tunning " overtime my audio items tests evaluation/" common listening bias " process.
I like to be sure always that I can before I give any opinion in this Agon forum or in anyother one. Everyone that recommend or give and audio item opinion on quality performance level has a serious responsability to the persons that read it and IMHO we have to take care about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: +++++ " there is a grapevine that LpGear Original ATN20SS has lots of rust on the magnets. As a result the sounds lacks definition. " +++++
this is part of the " price we have to pay " with vintage/out of production cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Nandric: Good suggestion to start " somewhere " the building of the " Common Listening Bias ".
IMHO this " building " means to me something like " build a building/edifice " where you can't do it by your self, you need the help of several experts on buildings and a lot of workers.
You and me IMHO are not enough " workers " to build that building, at least not to finish this " century ". That's why I opened an invitation to everyone is interested on the overall subject that not only could help us in between but very important is that could help each one of us with each one audio system to confirm where we are " seated " , if changes to the system were really improvements or drwback and many more.
I think we have to wait for the other people collaboration.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " goal is a lofty and desireable one, but I view it/viewed it as virtually unobtainable, because the principles among us live thousands of miles apart and on the surface seem to have wildly different listening biases, based on the vast differences among us in our choices of gear. To have a common understanding, we each need to have heard the others' systems, I think..... " +++++++
I understand you but could be interesting if you think that today we have nothing at hand on that complex subject, so the CLB could be a good " place " to start. No it is not the whole solution but IMHO we need to take some kind of action to build that " road " or any other that could help on the CLB meaning.
In the other side, I posted in that CLB proposal:
+++++ " This has nothing to " see " on what each one of us " like " or each one priorities but what is on the recordings/tracks we choosed for that " common listening bias ". " +++++++
and this is true, we are not talking of what we like it or not even could be that the LPs we choosed to start to build that CLB don't like us. The subject is try to have a more objective " frame " common for all of us.
Example, if we determine that in a recording track we have to hear ( this is one of the standards we determine for the CLB process. Please don't think in this moment how can we choose those standards. One step at its time. ), a solid " plink " when the drumer-player ( in that track ) hit the right-hand Cymbal and you instead heard only an " sshh " then you will know something is wrong somewhere and if after re-check the system set-up you still hearing the " ssshhh " instead that solid " plink " then that cartridge or that audio item or your system has no the resolution need it to be aware of that CLB standard.
The CLB process is not so simple as some of you could think. This process that I followed and follow from years is simple for me because I have a deep knowledge on it. So we have to work, this is not a " plug and play " tool but what IMHO it is: is the most useful audio tool you ever imagine you need it.
I'm not saying that the CLB process is 100% objective, has a subjective " weight " too but lower than what almost all are using it.
Of course that a CLB subject could take out from each one of us audio opinions the " full " force that has the today full subjective weight our opinions have ( don't be affraid about. ). When someone post: " that's how I like it " or " I heard it and is better than " that " and I like it more ", no one can argue about even if that person is totally wrong or if it is obvious for any one he is wrong.
The target is not to find out who's wrong or who's has the reason, far away from there: the main CLB target is that each one of us could understand in a better way the " meaning " on other people opinions as to make more easy that other people be aware more " deeply " what each one of us are talking about and that the audio items under " review/comparison " be against the same full process/tests. That the differences has a more certainty that what we have today with out that CLB process: IMHO our each " judgement " will improve a we can be " better " and better day after day.
All people collaborations ( you included. ) are welcome!, even " collaborations " against the CLB.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Nandric: Change that " bias " word, I took direct from the Dertonarm thread title, that's all. That word is not important, the Common Listening " approach " ( you name it. ) overall process/test is the important subject.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: I'm not diminishing anything, including the stylus. Please read again my post.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Yours is the fifth time that link comes here. Thank you to bring it again. Quite relevant, btw.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Just great,
http://cgi.ebay.com/Bang-Olufsen-MMC1-Cartridge-Excellent-Condition-/290575122507?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a7a0804b#ht_542wt_1139
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: What's goes on? whre this comes from? why? what could justify it against quality performance level?.
Why are we seating here seen this?:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ortofon-LH-10000-Limited-Edition-Headshell-/200618135918?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb5c5d16e#ht_3509wt_905
there are other headshells for 600.00-800.00 and 900.00, so right now is starting a " trend " on this subject.
why some one is trying to" punish " us with? what do you think about?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Banquo363: +++++ " Empire 4000diii. I tried and tried to make it work for me, but to no avail. I gave up because life is short and there are many other MM carts to try and have fun with and learn from. " +++++
yes, life is to short. This kind of experience already happened to me with some cartridges and due that I have to " go on " I just left them for a " better time " but I normally don't gave up like you, only if my best efforts are not enough for.
Btw, you posted on the Empire subject:
+++++ " Worst of all, it could be I had a 'fake' stylus (even though I bought it as genuine NOS). It looks exactly like the others that are judged authentic, but evidently Empire had some unscrupulous practices in their day, so who knows. This last reason is why I'm not keen on replacing the stylus even though there's a shop in the Netherlands that purports to carry the 'cross my heart, hope to die' authentic stylus. " +++++
certainly you did not change that stylus, that stylus source till today is one I recommend: I bought 3-4 stylus replacements ( original ) with out any single " reserve ".
In the other side, in the Montepilot Reed tonearm review I posted:
++++ " I own two sample stylus too and in my case I found out ( remember that the Empire cartridges are a 30+ years old design: not a " fresh " one. ) that are differences on quality performance in between, small ones but differences you can discern. I don't know if you already try your both samples but you can try and see what happen.
Other subject is that many of these MM/MI cartridges came a little loose in between the cartridge and the stylus plastic body, well I improve the cartridge quality performance when I glued the stylus plastic body to the cartridge it self in a way that there is almost no movement in between when on playback. " +++++
so, through my 4000D3 experiences there exist differences even with " true " original two stylus in between.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Nandric: I think there is no communication " problem " but a attitude issue that can be fixed.
I will answer the Thuchan post, the one that deserve it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Nandric, Lewm and friends: Like the Dertonarm first great opportunity almost all of you diminish it again or at least don't think could help you or just you think you are " done ".
I'm not entilted to this Dertonarm idea because is a hard work especially for me.
+++++ " LP's which each of us should own as a 'common reference' in our discussion about MM carts. This to me looks like an fantastic idea and I also assume that each of us can afford those 5 LP's so the most members can participate................................................ we all can check and listen to the same piece and hopefully will grasp what the other member means with his statement. Anyway we will then listen to the same music. " +++++
this Nandric is only one of the targets on the whole process. There are other interesting subjects/targets like: to be certain/aware not only how good a cartridge track but understand the differences on different cartridge traking distortion levels ( not with test tones but with real LP music. ) and how we perceive it: today many of you can't know for sure the " content " of distortion you are hearing due to cartridge traking distortion due that the stylus lose minute contact with the LP track grooves. Today many of you can't identify how a cartridge microphony affect its quality performance level and how that microphony is percieved by our ears.
These are only two examples of what we can attain when we are " inside " a precise and simple listening test process.
In my case the overall process is designed to look for ( mainly in a very precise way. ) what we are loosing with " that " audio item under test ( errors included ) and what I'm listening with that audio item. The process is not oriented to " what I like it or not " but for what is happening or not looking for lower distortions.
I know that all of you have its own process but as Dertonarm thinked and I agree a Common one is IMHO what we need.
Yes, almost always we are " safe " of scrutiny through our today subjective process attitude: " Its wrong but I like it " " It's distorted but I like it ".
Certainly that for people of that " caliber " that process is out of question.
The process is for the persons that think they know where are seated but that they want to confirm it.
IMHO and due to my self on purpose training I know for sure where I seated and this fact permit me to know several times where some of you are seated and why you posted what you posted.
Anyway, thank's to read these posts, fun hast to go on!!!!
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I forgot. Maybe I'm wrong but seems to me that some of you are not " prepared " to take action/first step on that subject in a similar way that people in this Analog forum were not prepared when years ago: I posted that DD TTs like the SP-10s or DP80s can beats top BD TTs or when I posted of the necessity of two subwoofers on true stereo fashion or when I posted on the signal SUTs degradation or when I talked about the tonearm/cartridge " unity ( when no one talkes about before. ) or when I posted about the critical importance of the phono stages ( when no one talked about ) when I posted on DD naked fashion TTs or even when I started this thread on MM/MI source alternative.
As always everything is about " time ". Today many persons on Agon ( some of you in this thread. ) already took ( years after. ) some of my posted audio alternatives and I know they are really happy with!!!
So, that time will comes with out doubt.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear nandric: ++++ " I was friendly invited for the next day. " +++
of course they did it!$!$!$!
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Waynefia: I know that you ask by curiosity and that you certainly are not a " rockie " on audio analog subjects, so my post is taking in count that.
I'm with Halcro when he said: " I personally don't care what shape the stylus is if it does the job. ", :
IMHO a cartridge is a integrated set of sub-sets cartridge parts where the stylus shape is only one of those cartridge parts and that IMHO even that has influence in the cartridge quality performance level it is not the one that define the overall cartridge performance.
A cartridge designer choose the cartridge different " places " build materials, stylus shape, coil type and material, size on cantilever or cartridge body, cartridge compliance, etc, etc. and tunned the cartridge to achieve the designer targets. He will choose the different cartridge parts ( including stylus shape. ) that be near or match those quality performance targets.
Elipthical or not, sperical or not line contact or not is only an important link ( as all the others. ) in the cartridge build chain.
What Timeltel posted on the stylus shape subject has IMHO no real meaning and IMHO is a misunderstood on the whole cartridge quality performance subject. Example of what he posted:
++++ " A minature .2 x .7 elliptical on micromass cantilever offered really solid bass, the kind that impacts the solar plexus. Good bass, as in the controlled kind. Visceral.... " +++++
well the same can be achieved with any kind of stylus shape depending on the designer targets and how good the cartridge was voiced.
The same for: ++++ " The nude .3 x .7 ellipt. sounded distant, as " +++++, that's the way those cartridges were tunned/voiced and nothing more.
The stylus shape question is for " rockies " in similar way when some one ask for different cartridge cantilever build materials. We can't aisle one single cartridge part ( stylus shape, cantilever, coils, etc, etc ) and say that the cartridge quality performance comes mainly from there.
Through this thread we already used almost every stylus shape made it and almost any cantilever type. We know what each one of those tested cartridges performs but we can't say that its performance level and characteristics is because the stylus shape or the cantilever. Even when we are changing different stylus replacement ( even from different cartridge models. ) we know what we are hearing but certainly we can't know with certainty why because we don't know if an aluminum cartridge cantilever in two-three different cartridge models are build exactly the same: hollowed, tapered, same size, same aluminum type ( blended? ), same walls cantilever thickness, real same compliance, etc, etc.
As I said we know what we heard and almost nothing more. So it is not only a misunderstood that post but useless.
Now, a cartridge designer can in very specific way to know the precise influence of stylus shape because during the cartridge build process and everything the same he can test different stylus shape and know for sure its individual " impact " on that design.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Stltrains: The ones I know ( a priori. ) in this thread is: Lewm and out of the thread I think Dougdeacon.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: That " common listening reference " ( as you name it. ) is for the moment out of my " front desk " ( other that is the process I use day by day. ) till people want it be prepare for and feel the necessity about. Sooner or latter this will be..As an example: Halcro tooks more than a year after readed my subwoofer thread to take action and this was after readed and confirmed about with a " pro " opinion and some of the ones that " die for their top BD TTs " took more than three years ( after I posted about. ) to go with the DD TTs like the SP-10s.
+++++ " concerned with the issue of distortion. Once identified it should become objectionable. It is difficult to believe there are those .... who would deliberately introduce such into their musical experience. " +++++
problem is that normally they don't identify. That Common listening reference process help to avoid it.
Anyway, maybe next time!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: I know he asked you not me but IMHO I think ( that almost always in the forum. ) any one could add something about and this time I decided to do it: just for the newcomers, as you said.
Btw, all the audio links in the audio chain are important and " delicate " but perhaps the phono cartridge ( the source. ) is the most one because works at the " microscopic " world and interact with so strong/hard " forces " down there that we can't even imagine where even 1-2 degrees on temperature difference makes a difference. Almost everything could alter the critical relationship between cartridge and tonearm/LP grooves. IMHO we can't try to make or try to appear things " simple " around cartridge subjects because are way complex and IMHO till today no one has the Bible on the whole subject. Certainly we amateurs did not.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Spherical, I own the 103 that neves was my cup of tea, I own the Supex S-100 that comes with two stylus one of them spherical but I don't tested yet and the Fulton High Performance that's a great performer including in the bass.
There are not many top cartridges with spherical stylus shape and I have to admit that I don't remember reviews on that kind of cartridges. So I really can't argue on precise way about, our self cartridge design is not taking in count a spherical stylus for it.
I'm only an amateur but I can't understand why all those reports you readed about.
Anyway, good that you agree on the overall post subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " in the end it is all subjective " +++++
maybe you are right in your " Assessment Scheme " but in mine exist a specific " objective weight " along some subjective " charge ".
Let me understand your opinion or better: please explain me what is the specific subjective weight when you are testing cartridge tracking distortion in a real music LP and one cartridge track perfectly that " torture test " and other can't. Where is the " all is subjective "?, a cartridge can track that track or not: this is an objective fact not subjective, this is only an example and are several of them.
I think we are talking of different whole subjects. I understand that you can't understand what you don't know what you don't ever experienced and that was one of the reasons of my proposal here. No, I'm not willing to go on that road any more.
IMHO, inside the " full subjective road " hide 99% of the mediocrity ( I'm not talking of you. ) because that " I like it " has no argument against it. In the other side IMHO the " subjective road " not only hide gross errors/distortions ( because we are unaware of them. ) but preclude growing-up in a better direction, that's why the high-end is where it is after all these years: almost no advance and we prefer that way that put under scrutiny our system and our music-audio knowledge level. This scrutiny is not important because all of us will be under same circumstances, what is important is to be better audiophiles. With the " subjective road " each one of us are " alone " like in a desert with no help around instead through the objective road IMHO we are surrounded by several tools that gives us " water " when in the desert. Is dificult for me try to explain the whole meaning, sorry.
You own a new phonolinepreamp and it's out of my mind ( other than flexibility. ) why some one like you that are looking for the Nirvana took that choice, I know perfectly all the EMT " problems " that preclude first rate accurate and neutral performance. Of course the " subjective road " defend it against any argument but this is not what I'm talking about: I'm talking about to achieve true Nirvana and even beyond it.
Anyway, my advise is that we need the " objective weight " in our each one audio item tests and audio item opinions, why not? where are the obstacles that preclude some " objective weight " ? whom told us we can't? whom told us is useless? maybe the AHEE? and please don't answer: a subjectivist!.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: I think that you still don't understand the whole meaning on my test process and I understand why.
A tracking distortion LP ( real music recorded. ) test ( not a test tone test LP. ) where two different cartridges performs different, between other things, tell you that the cartridge that performs better in that test will has lower tracking distortions through playback in any other LPs. Of course this " sole " parameter can't tell you if you will like it or not that when you add it to other objective and subjective parameters then that tracking distortion test result will have a true meani8ng for you and if could be that that test result has influence in what you are hearing.
The cartridge tracking distortion subject IMHO is very important/critical with quality performance level because if a cartridge has microscopic problems to follow LP grooves then will generate tracking distortions that degrade the final quality performance level.
Cartridge tracking habilities IMHO is one of the main targets in a cartridge design because IMHO we are trying to hear what is in the recording and first than all we can have what's in the recording primarily if the cartridge can track in clean way the LP grooves with the lower tracking distortions that can achieve.
When the cartridge stylus " hit " the LP tracking grooves ( during playback ) we first than all are in " hands " of that tracking cartridge habilities.
We need, first than all, that the stylus stay always in the grooves, this is a subject that not only I posted in the main page on this thread but that I posted several times. TAS on the Montepilot link-review talked exactly on this subject and its importance.
What we heard is a set of parameters where each one of them has influence in the quality performance level: there is a inter-relationship in between.
I said it several times: on my approach what you like it or not is almost non-important. What IMHO is important is that what you/we like is " CORRECT " ( I don't have other word. ) and with out an overall audio items test precise process you can't do it because what you don't be aware you don't know that exist in what you are hearing. The process is a hybrid one: objective/subjective.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I forgot on the Halcro linked cartridge MM/MC subject:
IMHO the top on that Audio Technica line: AT ML-180 OCC is even better than the 170.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: Finally I have a little time to give my answer- opinion ( btw, I need to post my answer to Halcro/Chris one and to Fleib on inductance. I need more time but I will do it. ) on your post about Common listening Aproach ( everything from here are in good shape and not against you. I respect you and you like me. Nothing personal. ) ):
++++++ " if we all would be a peer group knowing each other personally and also having had the chance to listen to each other system we might get closer to your objective parameters. I understand your approach finding comparable preconditions and to counterbalance them over the distance. Only I doubt it will work.
Regarding the EMT JPA 66, which is a pre-amp as well as a complex phono stage, I am in good neighbourhood with some Japanese and German afficinados that this is the ultimate machine. What I like is not only the sound and the variations you may play with, especially when it comes to MM cartridges. No, technologically the two output transformers (which phono stage does carry them) enable a different sound experience you may have with the EMT 139st too. Also the 6 inbuilt SUTs are of such good quality you will throw away most of the contenders...
This is first accurate and best performance......." +++++
Nandric said that both of us have no communication, I don't think so. The main difference is that both have different targets: when for you is enough that you like what you listen through your audio system for me needs not only like me but be accurate ( measure good. )-neutral-very low distortions-no colorations. When you are looking for what you like I'm looking for excellence in quality performance level all over the audio chain. Your trade-offs are way different from mines.
As I posted: I listen ( when driven audio items tests. ) to what I missed, to what is not in " there " or what is " exceptional different ", to what disappear ( including distortions. ), etc, etc. As Doug Sax answered on that Halcro link: " and I listened not so much to its virtues as to its faults ".
I have years posting: " loosing and adding the less to preserve the source signal integrity ", this is my main target. First than all I have to preserve the source signal integrity looking for accurate and neutral audio links all over the home audio system chain.
IMHO today what measure good sounds good too, not like in the old times when those vintage Japanese electronics always measured good but sounds bad, this IMHO does not happen almost any more: normaly what we heard today in current electronics/speakers/audio items is how it measures.
How accomplish or try to accomplish my main target?, other that my knowledge/experience level on music and audio subjects I have to design a " process that help me to understand what I'm listening under audio items comparisons and that help me to identify:different kind of distortions and different distortion levels, colorations, noises and the like " , that's where my process born and came " alive " years ago and over the time was and is " suffering " changes to improve and be not only better but more trusty.
I don't care about my " Japanece/Germans neighbourhood " and only take care about when that " person " has a superior knowledge/skills level than mine, that's it: when I can learn to improve and grow-up.
For years I care not only on my " Japanese/german " audio friemds, reviewers, audio retailers and the like till I take in count that I was not growing up or at least growing up to slow. Somedays one step a head and some other days two.tree steps back and many times only side steps. IMHO something similar of what you are living with out knowingit. My advise about is that you take alone your " road " with no " Jurassic audio gurus " surrounded where you can't grow-up and only are loosing time and money, yes with a lot of fun but loosing at the end. IMHO there is no " signs " of your audio improvements.
Your " Lost Friends " in your virtual system is nothing less than the " Frustration Friends " where sooner or latter your today tube electronics will finish.
I know that you are not looking for excellence performance level on your system and certainly with those " Jurassic Park " audio items is impossible you can achieve excellence.
I will take that EMT Phonolinepreamp that you and your " Jurassic " friends name it: " ultimate machine ". For me an " ultimate machine " must be first than all ACCURATE and NEUTRAL and your unit is far away from there. There are many reasons why your " ultimate machine " it is not an ultimate machine: full of transformers where the signal suffer severe degradation ( the best signal transformer is no tgransformer. ), full of swtichs where the signal is degraded, tube inherent inaccuracies non-neutral colored noisy and distorted technology ( it does not matters design and first rate execution. ).
Dear Thuchan, the RIAA deviation on that EMT ( 20hz to 20khz. ) has a swing of 1db!!!!!!, this IMHO is non-tolerable to any today phono stage: this sole factor made that that phono stage can't " save " and mantain the cartridge signal integrity, instead of that only degrade the cartridge signal with inaccuracies/colorations and distortions that are not on the cartridge signal!!!!, so where you and the " Jurassic Park " seen the " ultimate machine "?. I don't care that you like it because that's not the subject.
The subject is to achieve excellence quality performance level and that unit can't do it. I know that you think that with your new " toys " you go several steps a head but IMHO you only give steps backward or in the best scenario: only a side step, but I doubt this last.
That's why is so important to have a " specific process to audio system/items evaluation ". It is almost impossible to know if you really advance or go back only with that " It's wrong but I like it ", can't do it for sure.
I was really benign with your EMT RIAA deviation because if you measure that RIAA maybe that deviation is over 1db and not only that but is almost sure that the left channel RIAA be different from the right channel RIAA as maybe there are differences even in the line stage frequency range/response for both channels and even its output level for both channels could have differences too. I know what you are hearing not only because this EMT and your Wavacs but for what you report, example that you like it the TK3e. I can understand this because youare a rockie on MM/MI cartridges but in other areas you confirm what I'm saying.
We all know that analog is an imperfect medium but we don't have to increment those imperfections on each audio link that like the phono stage and say: " I like it ".
Accuracy is the name of excellence, with out accuracy it does not matters " how good it sounds ". Don't you think that is way better that something be accurate to the signal and at the same time Sounded Good?, certainly yes.
This is an example of the excellence level I'm looking for and that I already achieve with some of my audio items ( I'm not saying I'm done but I'm trying hard to be " there ". ):
https://picasaweb.google.com/104284617601331669309/1606201109?authkey=Gv1sRgCNrBhveq5uzC-AE#slideshow/5618984106525365922
that is the RIIA deviation ( both channels. ) on the phono stage I use.
https://picasaweb.google.com/104284617601331669309/1606201107?authkey=Gv1sRgCI3hj-juiKXOGA#slideshow/5618983008834878562
those are the same RIAA measurements on two top SS Phonolinepreamps.
Remember the 60K Phono Stage only german Vitus?, well it is not better.
The RIIA accuracy on my latest unit measured: 0.012db!!!! both channels!!!!: no differences in between.
This is only of the excellence example level I'm accustom and looking for.
No, you and me ( as many other persons in this forum. ) are listening different " things " and not because we don't: """ knowing each other personally and also having had the chance to listen to each other system we might get closer to your objective parameters. " ++++, but because your trade-offs ( for say the least and be polite. ) are way different from mines.
Excellence against " I like it ".
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: This is the second time in this page that you " receive " my personal opinion with " grace ", I really appreciated that because I don't wait nothing less from you.
I have to go now and come back when I have time.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: You know I respect you and in some ways I could agree with you on this subject. More on this latter.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " Strange how science and measurements don't appear to explain much in audio reproduction? " +++++
I think you are refering to the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency, if not then discard for you this post.
Where did you see that measurements does not explain much....?
For what I know, at least I'm never readed, there is no single scientific/measurements white papers where we can read that a high compliance cartridges can't works with a high effective mass tonearm as a fact I reported several times over several past years success with high effective mass tonearms mated with high compliance cartridges and you already knowed because you readed some of those posts and even you and me discussed about.
I think the first time I readed on the subject was in Audio 1980 report on the Ortofon MC2000 where the measured ( not calculated. ) resonance frequency was 5.5 hz and the reviewer was a little on surprise about but even that resonance measure he reported a great performance, even that cartridge/tonearm combination tracked cleanly the Telarc 1812 recording.
The point is that no one said it nothing against it. The resonance frequency calculation mainly tell us where is that frequency resonance figure that mainly tell us that if something resonate ( in the analog rig set up ) at the same frequency then we are in serious trouble. Over the years and over maybe hundred of different cartridge/tonearm set ups I never encounter any single trouble because the resonance frequency figure was out of the ideal 10hz, I reported resonance frequency as low as 4hz with no trouble on playback. Of course this is in my system where in other systems could be different.
Btw Lewm, through a tonearms tests the FR bearing friction measured average ( a german Agoner name it Helmut brought here that old test results. ). Till today I don't know any non-unipivot pivoted tonearm that bettered the EPA-100MK2 on that regard ( less than 4.5 mgr.. Big diference with your Dyna for example. ).
Anyway, as always my advise is to " forget " a little on that resonance frequency figure and test any kind of cartridge/tonearm couple hear it and decide.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum: I agree that almost everything here ( cartridge/tonearm ) has a complex relationship and yes that resonance figure is important and I don't diminishs it, I always posted about that everything the same things could be better if we are on that 10hz ideal resonance frequency.
Now, for the newcomers and due to all the analog imperfection and all what any one needs to know to achieve a decent cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stage set up IMHO it is of some help that that newcomer don't worry about that subject because one way or the other that makes his cartridge and tonearm options/alternatives dificult to choose.
The concept of resonance frequency on that couple for a newcomer could be to much. You have to look on this analog forums ( as Halcro posted. ) a lot of threads asking for advise about.
I remember that several years ago when my ignorance level was really high I was not worried ( because I did not knew that I have to be worried. ) on the resonance frequency subject and I can asure you that I never need to know about for be " happy " enjoying the music and as a fact I can't remember bad experiences for that unknow subject. Over the time I learn and everything was more complicated from there.
Anyway, this is only a point of view.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: No I did not try the AT 24 again.
Facts are that the B&O MMC2 and final tests on our tonearm design keep my time.
My 24 is in mint condition and is a cartridge that I always " mantained " in a high appreciation level. Yes, as soon I can I will give a listening again.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: The problem with the FR subject is that almost always never that discussion se a good end and at least twice ASgon owners decided to delete two different threads and I think we don't have to be in risk here.
A good alternative could be that Dertonarm could start a new thread on that specific subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " I rather go for lively, emotional sound, no neutral or clinical clean waves or flat in terms of frequency response. " +++++
that's the key to understand each to other:
Music per se is " lively and emotional " and I like you always look for that in any home audio system, so my targets on this regard is no different from yours: one " point " to both for agreement.
" Neutral or Clinical clean waves ": IMHO Neutral means " something " and Clinical clean waves means " something different ".
If we take Neutral let me say that something to be Neutral must be accurate. In theory the Music/sound that comes in the LP recording ( where the recording was made and is out of your/mine control. ) almost always came with that " lively and emotional " charge level ( different charge levels but came with. ). IMHO it is not the cartridge or the phono stage or the speakers or the room treatment or all these " factors " the ones that put that " lively and emotional " charge. These " factors " all and each one what can do is degrade, distort, put colorations, noises and the like to the the recording signal.
My take here is what I promoted for several years in this forum: ADD AND LOSE THE LESS TO PRESERVE THE RECORDING SIGNAL INTEGRITY and now I can add: to preserve the " lively and emotional " recording charge level.
That statement means ( between other things. More on this latter. ): accuracy and neutrality, with out these characteristics we can't achieve those overall targets.
One stop I have to do is: that today almost any " decent " audio items designs IMHO are good enough ( they improvement over the last 10 years, especially on electronics/speakers. ) to be accurate, neutrals and with out any sign of " clinical, analitic or cold " performance, especially the SS designs. If a system sounds clinical/analitical something is wrong in that audio system chain and has to be fixed. IMHO Accuracy and Neutrality is no more a sinonimous of: clinical, analitical or cold performance, this was in the past and over the years the AHEE promoted it as a myth.
Accuracy and neutrality not only not preclude that " lively and emotional " recording charge/content but enhance it, permit that you and me be nearer to the recording nearer to that " lively and emotional " content.
Thuchan: why do you need or any one else to add a " ton " of distortions ( every kind ) to achieve that " lively and emotional " music enjoyment when that " lively and emotional " content is already " there " and does not needs " distortions " surrounded it?.
Audio items specifications at least serve for we can know what we are adding and loosing to recorded signal. Following with my statement and trying to take decisions according with: that " simple " 1db RIAA eq. deviation in the EMT Phonolinepreamp preclude even to " see " it for more information, that RIAA deviation is IMHO unacceptable inside " excellence level standards ".
Why ( everything the same. ) any one can choose that RIAA deviation over other unit with a 0.1db?, why? why? why ?
Thuchan, please remember that the RIAA eq. is a curve and any single deviation affect not only that frequency but at least two octaves and this means that if we have a deviation say at 300hz we will have a " coloration/distortion " in the frequency range between: 300hz and 900hz. If the deviation came at 2khz this affect the frequency band all the way up to 6khz. You can take a look to that DM10 or the Dartzeel charts I linked before.
So we are not talking here of " something " that we can diminish in anyway if the name of our targets is: EXCELLENCE, I asume this is your target too.
If we take those Wavacs I would like to take its output impedance measure ( that you can't find it anywhere and for good reasons. ) that even that does not exist as an amplifier specification anywhere in the net and due that is a tube design I asume is a high output impedance, say over 0.1 ohm maybe over 0.5 ohm or even higher. But what this amplifier output impedance means? why is important to achieve our Excellence level target?, very simple: the Ohms Law where the amplifier output impedance is the one that " decide " how will be the response/sound when the amplifier " see " ( is in direct touch. ) the loudspeaker own electrical impedance and phase curve.
Here are two examples of that electrical impedance and phase curves, one for the B&W 802D and the other for the MagicoQ5:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements
we can see how the loudspeakers impedance/phase curve " moves " ( up and down ) over frequency range and this is what the amplifier " see " and has to handle with " aplomb ". If an amplifier ( like yours ) has a high output impedance its response will almost " mimic " that curve with its output level, so that amplifier is functioning as and additional equalizer with what you see on those charts. This is not what you or any one want it, what we want is that it does not matters the speaker electrical impedance and phase curves the response be flat with the same gain over the frequency range.
Here either we can't IMHO diminish that fact. For years I used tube electronics till I learn. The incredible " fact " is that several today speaker designs were voiced with tube electronics and this is not because the speaker designers does not know Ohm's Laws but because Commercial$$$$ issue ( there are a lot of tube electronic users out there and growing up!. ) and on some cases because tubes hide bad speaker designs: yes the AHEE " write the rules ".
These are only two examples ( RIAA and impedance. ) of many more that many of us are not taking in count because: " It's wrong but I like it " attitude.
Lewm posted someting questioning my Velodyne's/speakers. I did not choosed the Velodyne's just for " fun " or at random, as in almost all my audio items/links there are " deep " reasons. There are a lot of subs out there and many of them very good too but till today and for a two channel system no other subwoofer has a THD so low like the Velodynes. The THD is in this audio item extremely important and almost no one cares when choosed their subs.
Not only that, you can go to any subs manufacturer site and you can't find the sub THD specification and if you ask to the manufacturer he has no answer ( I know this because I did it. ).
Is it to go down to 18hz-20hz ow whatever important? certainly it is but is more important how we achieve that low bass and with which THD level because our hears are sensitive ( quite sensitive ) to high distortions in this frequency range ( well if you can recognize that kind of distortion.
I remember that no more than two years ago an Agoner in this forum was showing how good his system " performs " and if I remember well he stated that his system subwoofers had the capacity to performs over 138 db ( maybe more at 20hz ) on SPL, I posted a single and simple question about: please let me know with which THD levels at different SPL? and you know what: till today he never gives an answer.
It is extremely dificult to have low distortions in a subwoofer that's why the THD figure is so important and the 0.5% on the Velodyne is a good standard.. Do you know which is the THD number on your subs at 120 db of SPL? no?, well try to measure it and you will be surprised about. Do you know the IMD figure in your main speakers at say 95 db continuous SPL?, you will be surprised here too when you take that measure.
Btw, Halcro: ask Vanderstenn for that figure at different SPL, I have the answer.
Thuchan, Why have we to accept " mediocrity " when we can choose the Excellence?, there is no reason for that. We all are surrounded by audio mediocrity that the AHEE promoted over the years and as Lewm said: we are almost traped there. This is not the way I like to live my audio life I decided to take a different " road ": is it that way what you want to live?, I don't think so: always is time to make the right changes.
Don't think that I'm against the tube electronic designers, not at all I have a lot of respect for them because even all the tube technology limitations there are some guys like the Atmasphere /Ralph that really contribute to serious improvements on the tube world. I'm against the tube technology heavy limitations that goes against the MUSIC.
When I brought the Dertonarm idea of that Common listening Approach my intention was to show you ( all of you ) how a specific listening process ( my process. ) can help any one first to understand what each one of you are hearing/listening, second to discern very precise about different kind of distortions ( example: cartridge microphony level, overhang vs SRA, tracking distortion levels, accuracy against distortions, neutrality against colored performance, etc, etc. ) and where it comes and to know where each one of us are " seated " in that Audio Learning Curve and how improve.
Almost no one really shows interest about ( like the first time with Dertonarm thread. ) even no single one of you asked which recording/LPs tracks can show you about cartridge tracking distortion level or microphony cartridge level or other quality performance subjects. As I posted many of you are not prepared yet or simple as this: does not care about, what you want is: " It is wrong but I like it " against " IT IS RIGHT AND I LIKE IT ".
Those Signets ( 3,5,7 ) are IMHO and as I posted an average performers with many troubles about distortions/colorations/resonances and the like againstother top cartridges performers. I can discern many things that you can't and not because I'm better than you but only because I'm trained to do it and you not or at least your test process can't tell you yet.
Do you think that I discerned and posted about the RIAA errors on the Dartzeel or the SS strain gauge with out prior knowledge ( way before ) of its real RIAA deviations only because I have ears?, certainly not: NO ONE COULD DO IT WITH OUT A PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PROCESS TRAINING and this is what I have.
I already left behind the tonearm FR experience where I was a fanatic of it till I learned, the SAEC 506 and 8000 episode, the Micro Seiki heavy BD TTs, the SUTs ( any kind . ), obviously tubes, TT clamps, electrical power ( conditioners ", the terrible Orsonics headshells, the big and comfortable couch on system seat position, the fancy cable and cable connectors, the non-removable headshell tonearm designs, the full range speakers, the LOMC cartridges ( any. ), the stand alone phono stages, the passive line stages, etc, etc. I left behind any audio alternative that increment distortions at an unacceptable level. Distortions are the Music enemy and we have to learn how detect it and how make dust/LOWER on it. Right now I'm preparing to change the three premium caps ( teflon between them. ) on my crossover's ( each side ) speakers for simple/plain cheap electrolitic caps in a special configuration that's a very promising alternative.
I try always to be open to any orthodox or unorthodox audio alternative looking for lower distortions and improvements. I almost never say NO, first I tested and decide about. It is only attitude and this kind of attitude always gives me big rewards that no amount of money can buy.
I have two samples of a " wrong " attitude, one comes from an Agoner friend that owns Avalon Ascents speakers and that in my subwoofer thread I asked him to try subs with those speakers because I thinked he will receive a good quality performance system improvement. Well this guy gives me any explanation you could think telling me why subs can't works in his system: from technical explanation to subjective explanations, all those explanations were pure theory that he can't prove that he can't duplicate " live " and for that explanations he lose the best opportunity to have a real great system improvement. Other one is Lewm ( only an example and nothing personal Lewm. ) against DD TT naked fashion and its improvements over plinthed alternatives: I give him exactly what to do only to test on the set up he already had with almost no investment and because he thinked ( in theory is right. ) that a stand alone tonearm is " wrong " solution and that the plinthed alternative is better than a naked one he refuse to try it with no single prove with no single sign that could tell him that he can duplicate his theories, even he had a second opportunity with his MK3 and he did nothing about only because on what he belive but that can't duplicate at least to find out if those theories are true. This kind of attitude IMHO goes against audio learning.
A subjective explanation or thechnical explanation has almost no value if you can't duplicate " live " those " explanations ".
There is one experience that I want to share with you. The tested experience came from an Agoner joke in one of mi threads: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1219677256.
Things were that I posted the importance of what clothe we are wearing when listening the audio system: sintetic fibres or natural fibers, where with the natural fibers ( wool or cotton. ) exist an improvement in what we perceive through the audio system ( here we have to remember that we hear through our whole body and senses, including our eyes that's why I think that the people that listen to their audio systems with close-eyes are hearing something that's does not comes in the recording ( in the very first moment that we close the eyes the " imagination " take the " control ". ) in the same manner that the ones that listening with lights off: when was the last time you attend to a live concert where the hall was on black dark during the playback?, makes no sense . ). Well that Agoner posted: " Hey why not naked? ", everyone laughed but time latter I remember him and I said: " yes, why not? what can I lose? " and I run this fully naked listening test. You have to do it it is a glorious audio/listening test/experience that you can't even imagine or dream with till you experience first hand. I have to say is not easy because we are not accustom to be and seat fully naked to listen our home audio system, at first we suffer of some kind of " stress " because the naked condition but after we surpass that moment the rewards comes.
Till now only Banquo63 understand ( I'm not saying he agree. ) my position or at least was the only person that express oneself in the subject.
Anyway, I take you as an example and I confirm you that there is nothing personal other than try to help you: even that you did not asked for.
Can I be wrong?, certainly yes but I need proofs ( external proofs. ) why I'm wrong.
Whit out a specific process tests any kind iof improvements in our audio systems is at random: we need a specific path we need specific targets to have at least a comparison medium, if not how can we sure that a change in our system is a real improvement and no a side or back step?: only because our ears? only because we like those different and higher distortions?. IMHO we need some objectivity weight in our audio " ideas " along subjectivity weight.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Well my " party " was and is a " private " one.
My best wishes on your rehab hospital.
Btw, Same for your family Lewm, I was unaware how close to you was that unhealthy person.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Geoch: Good coincidence, I was tempted several times to do it but I never decided to start that " trip ".
Yes, I agree that a non-comercial$$$ good tube design where exist the correct understanding of tube technology to enrich its advantages and " vanish " its disadvantages could gives rewards against commercial units but for today I can think on that " enterprise " maybe I have to change my targets because if it is true that things could be improved it is tru too that are tube technology limitations that could preclude levels of Excellence.
The SS technology has its own advantages and disadvantages but its limitations IMHO does not preclude the achievement of levels of Excellence, all depend of each knowledge designer level as in tube too.
Btw, yes execution of electronics designs is critical and yes there are today tube units that when you open and see inside you know where the mediocrity came.
And yes too, the importance on a good power supply ( against an average one. ) design makes a paramount difference either on SS or tube electronics.
What we audio hyperactive enthusiast need is time, we need a lot more than 24 hours on each day.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Downunder: ++++ " the true end result of testing and listening, should go past testing the same 10 demo tracks . " ++++
could you elaborate something on this for I can understand your main point?, thank you.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " While an IC might have negative feedback the benefit can outweigh. " +++++
IMHO outweight " nothing ". Do you know why a designer build a unit around ICs?. I know the answers but is useless to tell you, I think is better if you find out the reasons real reasons for such kind of designs where quality performance is not the main target.
About tubes I think is more " healthy " if we leave things in its current status because IMHO there is no worst " fight/war " that start one that is loosed right from the begin: no one can win trying to " defend " tube technology and in the other side this is not the subject on my last posts. I'm not against tube technology per se, it is only that this technology can't IMHO help to make things easy to work on the Concept, that's all.
Fleib, there are levels different levels for anything and for quality performance in audio is no exception: tube tecnology has a different level and I prefer to leave this way before go in deep about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: I'm n ot against FR tonearms per se or just for " fun ". I owned no less than six times the 66 and 64 models and I live happy with till I design the Concept to understand where I was " seated " and then understand what the FR was doing and what was not doing and I learned that that tonearms have higher distortions than other tonearms that affect and degrade the cartridge signal more than other tonearms.
I left the FR " episode " behind years ago but I conserve one FR64 that time to time I used to be sure nothing changed and to be sure that our tonearm design does not sounds with the FR quality perfromance level.
Lewm, this is at least the fifth time ( maybe more in other threads, including the two Agon deleted. ) that I post what I posted here. Please don't push me to go in deep on that useless subject that belongs to the " darkness " side of the AHEE ( Audio High End Establishment: for the newcomers to this thread. ), this is part of the mediocrity I'm talking about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " you give no one room to disagree with your approach. And you are not really paying attention to my responses " +++++
maybe I'm wrong but I think that for you can have " room " to disagree or agree the best way to do it is do it from " inside the approach ", I mean: forget everything your own approach and " buy " my Concept/approach trying to understand as deep as you can ( even if you don't like it. ): as if was your " own approach " and then comeback and discuss and you will see that I leave big " land " to run. As a fact I'm looking for that because I always am looking how to improve it and through other persons opinions is a very good way to do it.
My approach is objective/subjective oriented so almost any one with the right attitude can discuss about.
Thuchan can't do it because he can't take out his " cap approach " and take mine put on his head: only to discuss it. Lewm, I can't discuss with you on any subject if I don't understand or take for me ( for a moment ) what you are entilted for/with. That's why so many times audio subject discussions in all forums ends with no agreement or conclusions that help the people involved on the discussion.
About that I'm not paying attention to your responses maybe you are right because this morning I wake up at 100 mph instead 1 mph, sorry for that.
Alienating? do you think that?, maybe is time to think about because that was not my attitude even if you see it that way: sorry for this too.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: A good coincidence.
My everyday listening music belongs mainly to female pop, jazz and classical one but on my test bench/the Concept between the music LPs that I choosed for the whole test process I use at least 6 different rock/similar LP tracks, you readed several times that I'm using on that porpose: Laura Branigan " Self Control ", David Bowie/G.Moroder " Cat People ", Caribean Quee, Hotel California, etc, etc.
Well I just found out an artricle related that explain a little of the convenience to use this kind of tracks for evaluations:
http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb200009.htm
I agree with this reviewer. If when you run Cat People track on your system at continuous 95 SPL at seat position ( 102-103 db on peaks. ) and everything thing ( on what you normaly heard at 84 db. ) at least continue the same then you know you have a very good system. There are many things that we can learn running good recorded rock music in our systems even if we don't like that kind of tracks, remember that we are using those tracks only for system/item evaluations/comparisons.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |