Dear Travbrow: Could you share your experiences with your Supex SM-100MK3? and one question: its stylus has the SMM/38E ID?, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Royj: How I wish to have in home a fully laboratory with the right tools to make this extremely interesant cartridge/tonearm in motion relationship research and the why's of the perceived quality sound and determine which are the precise trade-offs with different cartridge and tonearm choices designs.
I was trying to remember any experience I had with a low compliance cartridge mounted in a low effective mass tonearm but I can't remember of any, maybe is time to confirm ( comparing. ) what you stated about. I have to give me the time to test it.
Good to hear from you again.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Griffithds: Interesting what Expert people said because I like the Clearaudio LOMC cartridge designs.
This week I will try to give a listen to my MM Clearaudio and see what I hear.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Justjb: No I don't think you are doing something wrong. Any cartridge set up to achieve top performance depend on the tonearm match and what the audio system " has to say ", so it is dependable on that.
In my system both cartridges performs very good at 47 but a little better at 100k. Other factor that has influence is loading capacitance where you need to " play " a little as with VTA/SRA. Both cartridges are very good and not lifeless at 100k but if you are achieving good performance at 47k then left in that way and enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear griffithds: I never had that kind of trouble with any cartridge and I own too many LPs from the 70-80's.
Now, the higher or lower VTF value is not what determine the cartridge tracking ability. IMHO any LP that a MC cartridge can " read " any MM/MI can read it too and if not then there is a mistmatch down there on the cartridge/tonearm set-up.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Nandric: Where? because if you make " click " on the posted link: you will be there ( I think?? ).
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stltrains: For happened what you posted with yiur 4000D3 IMHO or there is a severe mistmatch between tonearm/cartridge combination or that cartridge came with a big suspension problem or that tonearm has a bearing trouble.
Here you can read about that subject: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1275323834
where I normally run at 1.0grs but even at 0.5grs there is no problems with this Empire cartridge.
I have to add that in all my years of audio experiences I never had that kind of trouble with any cartridge either MM/MI or LOMC.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear In_shore: Aluminum headshells as the AT LS-12 makes a very good match with the 20SS. This cartridge is very sensitive on what is mounted but when already is like it like it it is a great performer.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Lewm: I almost concur with you on the Dyscovery model that's is a little on the analytical side and not an easy cartridge with tonearms on choice.
In the other side my experiences with my Insider Gold is different and if not the best cartridge for accuracy I can tell you that in my system I can't detected a thinh/steely or cold " color ". I had a two days experience with the Reference ( a model in between the Insider and Dyscovery. ) in a Rockport TT and if I detected something on the steely side was only that because the cartridge was not fully settled-down I remember it as a little on the bright side but this and the Insider are good performers in the bass and mid.bass frequency range where the Discovery is more analytical.
Now, the Clearaudio are a little jelaously on the tonearm and phono cable and asked for very precise VTA/SRA set-up. Maybe the Walker tonearm is not the best match for the Clearaudio cartridges and you have to remember that even with tubes those speakers are alittle" agressive " on the highs.
Yes, I agree with you that those Clearaudios did not match the richness of the MM/MI but all we know: which LOMC can do it?
Last Clearaudio I listened in my system was the Stradivari and I did not found out with a thin sound but all we know that in this quality performance cartridge behavior things are system/set-up dependent, with the Clearaudios load impedance can be an issue.
Anyway, I posted that I like it but that does not means that I prefer over top MM/MI cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: The ? in your post means that you are asking for opinions?, I hope so, this is mine:
if the Technics is the MK4 and stand alone carrtridge ( not headshell integrated. ) and in good operational condition then go a head if, too, your pocket is fat enough to get the Virtuoso is not then go for the CA.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Acman3: I did not but seems to me that this one could be even better and I understand is compatible with the XLM: http://www.williamthakker.eu/ADC-RSA-Astrion-Original-Tonnadel_c10-13-201_p5316_x2.htm
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Griffithds and friends: These are my current experiences with the Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?ranlg&1313624221&&&/Clearaudio-Virtuoso-Wood-Cartridge-
Btw, Lewm you need to experience this cartridge, worth the effort.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: Through the Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood review you can read which are good part on my AT/Signet top model tests. Here it is the complete models:
all cartridges were tested in the AT-1503MK3 tonearm, all with 100 kohms alond 100-150 pf added on capacitance, positive VTA/SRA and AT recomemd VTF.
The TK10ML SeriesII and the AT-24 were mounted in the AT-LH13, the AT-ML 180-OCC and the 160 LC-OCC in the AT-MG 10 were the AT-20SS and the AT 155 LC in the AT-LS12. Was in these headshells were perform better.
As you can read on the Virtuoso review the TK10ML Series II along the ML 180-OCC are IMHO the better quality performers in that AT/Signet vintage models. Very near is the 20SS and the third step goes to the 160 LC-OCC where the 155LC as good it is IMHO has a lower quality performance level. Btw, these two latest models are not as good trackers as the three top models and it is not that were bad trackers because that's not the case both are very good but the top three are exceptional in this tracking regard.
I think that could be worth that you give a listening to the Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood, amazing performer for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: ++++++ " This is currently the King in my collection " +++++
Could be that the Clearaudio Virtuoso can change that status. Try to give you an opportunity to hear it, it is a low price current model with manufacturer warranty.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: If you can give a try to the Virtuoso. Knowing you IMHO you will find it better than anything you own. Of course you can lose the stylus inter-change fun but as a " side " advantage you could achieve higher quality performance level from your audio system for improve your music own enjoyment.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I was a little surprised to note the ease with which you have let loose of your previous venerable gods in favor of this new god. " +++++
ease?, do you think that was ease for me made that review after more than four years and 12K+ dollars and all my effort on all those vintage MM/MI cartridges that many of us are enjoying?, you can't be more wrong than that.
After be " touched " by the Virtuoso first than all I have to fight with my self part that support the vintage ones afight that was loosed from the very first moment due to the greatness of the Virtuoso but I can tell you that only because I first than all like to be honest with me I decide to share my experiences with all of you. The easy way could been stay silent and post/review nothing about but I'm not " made " for the easy-way but what is have to be.
Yes, my vintage cartridge hunt finish right now. There is useless with no sense to follow lookinf for when no one of my 80+ vintages can't even the in different league Virtuoso cartridge.
My hunt from here start to look for " something " that can outperform the Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood: nothing less, as I said makes no sense to me. I'm trying to " catch " levels of Excellence and the Virtuoso is my latest step to be nearest that target.
I have to test all my today MM/MI designs to know if the Virtuoso performance is unique or a solid trend with today cartridge designs, I hope could be in this way.
For years I supported that there were no significant advance in phono cartridge designs over the last 30-35 years. Well if the Virtuoso is a good example on what we have today ( I need to confirm it with other today cartridges. ) then I want to say that I was totally wrong on that subject because the Clearaudio cartridge is a clear advance that IMHO outperform in clear way any " thing " we know.
The world/universe/life is in constant movement with constant changes we can live for ever with those vintages, the Clearaudio gives me the opportunity to move on: welcome to this we have to move on to a better audio world.
Lewm, the King is dead: long live the King!. I already accepted after asimilate this " hard " fact.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Fleib: Yes, I readed somewhere and that's why I posted in the review, thank's to confirm it. I own the AT-95 but I only heard it in brief way and I have nothing important to remember but the subject is in the Virtuoso performance. I don't understand you very well: do you own the Virtuoso?
Btw, this Clearaudio is not a reesemblance on any AT cartridge I know on tone and balance quality performance level. As I posted AT was a good choice for Clearaudio because its skills and very high quality on design execution but IMHO the main fact/subject with this cartridge was and is the extraordinary voicing made it by Clearaudio: There was IMHO the main merit in the Virtuoso design because I can't think that this kind of performance " appears " at random.
The voicing on top cartridges is what makes the difference, two cartridges with the same motor and stylus/cantilever assembly can be " tamed " with different " taste " and different quality performance. Those hand calibrated cartridges means not only tight specs but different voicing tone/balance color.
Anyway, for me this Clearaudio sets new reproduction quality performance level standards. From this moment it is my reference against any other cartridge alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Please do it.
I'm trying to get a 2M Black to give a full listen in my system hopping to find out a trend on the great performance road build by the Clearaudio Virtuoso. Good that Lyra take that " lower price " road in favor of gives their customers high quality for a reasonable price.
About reviewers I can't trust in them any more. The Stereophile people gives B rank to the Virtuoso when the SS SG the SMMC1 and the Voice received all an A. IMHO my Virtuoso outperforms easy all them. I don't want to follow speaking on ST reviewers.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
I have to add: untrusty reviewers.
R. |
Dear Timeltel: That was the stylus shape in 2001 not today that is a little different as you can read in the review.
My experiences with the Virtuoso and Maestro shows me that as good the Maestro is the Virtuoso is IMHO bettter performer with out that added warm in the full wood body in the Maestro. Please go to the posts in the review where you can read something about.
Anyway, Clearaudio done with those two MM cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: If any of you are interested this is a trusty source with good price:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?anlgcart&1317543188&/Clearaudio-Virtuoso-wood-
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " to think that Peter Suchy sat around "tuning" this cartridge which he had made for his product line by AT, apparently. However, my guess is that there was a large dollop of luck involved.... " ++++++
that could be, whom knows for sure, but that does not change the fact that thank's to that great luck or voicing surged that great cartridge performer.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siniy123: Well, the 170 performs different from the 180 , I own both.
No, I don't think we are so different because the 20SS goes up to the 160 as you I think the main difference is with the 155 in the other side there are different 160's I don't know if yours is the same that mine. You can check on the cartridge top plate and compare model with mine.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Nandric: Well those " masters " knows a lot more than you and me.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Don: +++++ " I'm trying to get my hands on one of the Black Virtuoso's but the only web site that I have found that pictured it was in German. " +++++
almost all these people speak English so my advise is that just contact them and that's all. I'm sure you will have an answer in english too.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum: Always are trade-offs. Mines on the 100k impedance subject is more for convenience due that in my Phonolinepreamp to change impedance means solder/unsolder resistors and I really can't take all that time when I'm testing so many cartridges. I can tell you that differences are not huge but I want to remember you that several vintage cartridges were designed to " see " 100k.
My Phonolinepreamp has an interesting option, I can choose between the RIAA inverse eq. with its decay on the high frequencies to infinite or stop that HF decay at 50k where with this option I can have a more " open " sound on the highs ( with out phase shift. ), as a fact I understand that in the recordings this is exactly what is done because the cut heads goes so hot over 50k that you have to cut at no more than 50khz. Several recordings came in this way. This is an option that I can use along 47k on impedance, I remember years ago I tested but for some reason I choosed ( maybe to conform exactly with the RIAA with out take in count what happened during recording proccess. ) 100k on impedance.
Anyway, trade-offs are part of audio.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Griffithds: ++++ " BINGO! I found the sweet spot on the Virtuoso. Man, is it up in the back. You would think I was plowing for potatoes. My Vandersteen's have never disappeared before in my room. What a difference. I have to figure out a way to mark this setting or my days of rotating cartridges would be over. This is true heaven. " ++++++
good that was my same experience. Now, don't give up on the subject, mark it as you suggest and try tiny additional VTA/SRA looking if the performance is degraded or you can hear more forceful, sonority or solidity in the sound.
As I posted in the review this was a " hard " worth time and even that I swear taht's was the right VTA/SRA at least two times I re-check and found out " something " even better: less colored ( if you could find any coloration in this CA low low colored cartridge as any I heard before. ) with lower distortions.
Yes, agree with you: this is a true heaven!.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum/Timeltel/Fleib: +++++ " 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? " ++++++
well, IMHO CA has the skills and tools for design and build MC cartridges and the skills to design MM ones but maybe not the tools to do it. Let me explain a little:
as I posted time ago we are on the design and get our own cartridge but due that we have not the skill/tools to make it in " house " I contacted with three-four cartridge manufacturer ( OEM. ) options out there. The very first was VdH due that I have very good relationship with Dr. VdH and his answer was that even that he marketed MM cartridges he does not has the " tools " ( whole infraestructure. ) for build our MM/MI cartridge but he can help me if I decide for MC one. I can't say if this could make sense to J.Carr ( for example. ) or to any other cartridge expert but that was the answer.
Now, we can't know for sure ( only CA and AT. ) what happened and is happening on the subject. We only can speculate that I don't really like it but this time I could get the " risk ".
It is clear to me that the cartridge body ( wood top plate ) was and is a CA idea and that I think they make it in house, I think too that ( Lewm, you could be right: the Suchy's don't take their value time where the money is not but where the money is: LOMC products. ) the cartridge tunning was made for CA people and could be too that AT build the motor/generator and CA not only fine tunned but assembly on its own facilities. Even could be that today CA, as Timeltel posted, makes the whole cartridge with a licensed AT agreement.
I think that the main merit on the Virtuoso great quality performance belongs to CA. This guys someway or the other found out how kill ( almost eliminate. ) cartridge own resonances. I posted in the review something similar of what Fleib posted in this thread: cartridge body free of resonances, no stylus guard ( removable one. ), non-user removable stylus assembly, matched cantilever/stylus with those electrical characteristics, etc, etc.
All these made it that the cartridge shows a distortion-free behavior that no other cartridge I know has at this level. Because what we are hearing in the Virtuoso Black wood IMHO is not what is done/doing but mainly what it does not done/doing that all the other cartridges ( till today ) are doing.
What we are hearing through other cartridges ( any ) are distortions/colorations ( different levels. ) that the Virtuoso does not shares or that I can't detect it.
Btw, Fleib I don't think that the stylus/cantilever on my sample goes on the " exotic " side ( boron, line contact, ruby and the like. ), the cartridge is that good by design/build execution. J. Carr posted: if you are re-tipping your cartridge and you want to preserve the nearest to its original performance level it is important that the cantilever construction and build material be the same. In my sample the cantilever is similar to the aluminum in the original one.
Other thing that is clear to me because all what we posted here and in the review is that that AT-95 ( that I own and that I heard it a few moment ago is a TOTALLY different performer and for the people that could think that can change/convert the 95 in a Virtuoso are in mistake: NO WAY. Fleib was ( twice ) very clear on this " misunderstood " subject.
IMHO and with out heared/tested in deep other today cartridges my take is that the cartridge history could be write: before and after the Virtuoso Black Wood!.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Mab33: That's great and a clear confirmation on the Alex skills: good.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Travbrow: That were my experiences with the Nagatron and the ones from you I had with the Supex that's as I posted is way better tracker than the Nagatron with that cheap stylus.
Good that you are enjoying the Supex, very good indeed.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Storyboy: Please open the Flyer (en ) in the VE link:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/akg/p8.shtml
you can read that the P8E came with nude elliptical stylus too.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlaloum: +++++ " 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 ...." +++++
if normally during recording proccess the LPs came with this " additional turnover " to stop high frequency decay to infinite to 50 khz then common sense tell me that if we want to be truer to the recording then it is better to use it that way ( enhanced RIAA eq. ) but only a few phono stages have this option. Even that you posted " not critical on listening " ( because this happen on high frequencies away from our normal hearing sensitivity. ) my experiences about were that I can't hear differences, we have to remember that harmonics helps to modulate the whole music ears perception and if not for other " thing " we have to remember that link by Pryso that speaks of hearing ability even way over 50 khz " down " to 102.4 khz!
I think is time to test more in deep this recorded option on playback. I will try to find out some time in the future.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum: Well I agree that's difficult to pin down but in many ways this is a " land " that exist and is not discussed yet or at least not enough.
We have on hand the Pryso link: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm that speaks of our brain/ears, we have cartrridges with a really wide frequency response starting as low as 6 hz and goes over 100 khz and my speakers as several others goes beyond 50 khz. Now, the topic is a wide one because involves that turnover on the RIAA inverse eq., recording proccess and microphone specs, room treatment, live music frequency response, etc, etc. Maybe too wide and asking for a wide and specific knowledge at each different " level ".
We could try to analize. Then if it is ok, waiting for your " approach " on the subject: choose where to start with.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: I'm not sure if we are trying in specific to equalize the sound of the signal cartridge, seems to me that we are trying ( at least me. ) to " surround " the cartridge and the cartridge signal with the most " neutral/accurate " environment for we listen the cartridge signal with the lower added " distortions/colorations " and with minimum loosign information on the original cartridge signal.
Build materials on TT and tonearm are critical to achieve those targets or to be nearest to. Of course that there are other factors with influence about but the build materials subject is IMHO a main factor.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum: Reading through the links you posted the information is " severe " questionable in many ways other than what D. Rife made it. This kind of tests could be almost always " controversial " and almost always not " conclusive ". Anyway, gives us an idea about and like Freib posted: that persons that detected 80khz say something.
Now, IMD exist inside the 20 to 20 frequency range and on the UHF, it is an intrinsec " ingredient " in the music reproduction. That exist does not help for " our " purpose but as you point out it is not an easy task to know for sure how many of what we are " hearing " over 15 khz is IMD and how many is real frequency signal in the recording, too many factors/parameters to measure before we can even determine the strategy/model to find out that.
I have on hand 4-5 cartridge manufacturers specs on the cartridge IM measures ( inside the 20 to 20 frequency range not beyond it. ) and the values are between: 0.3% to 0.5% that seems to me a " good " low number that I think is not easy to detect and more than this not easy to know first how to know what is and how it sounds IMD.
I have no doubt that we can hear/feel ( through our body . ) on the UHF range ( say to 50 khz. ) but the point on the recording/playback proccess there are so many factors that could impede that we can detect ( and we need to have/pass a deep training to do it. ) UHF recorded if these high frequencies did not came at the " right " SPL where our " body " could detect it.
In the other side I think there is no information out there that could tell us how that 0.3% IMD ( inside 20 to 20 frequency range. ) changed beyond 20 khz: how much increment or not.
I have a lot of questions on the whole subject and no answers but only speculations that does not help.
My system goes beyond 50khz and I can detect when the supertweeters are " on or off " what I can say for sure is if that " I can detect " is 60% sound and 40% IMD or whatever. In any case I prefer my system performance with ST " on ". Yes, I know that that more " airy/open " sound could be charged of IMD but I can't tell exactly.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: As Mab33 posted ( thank's. ) it is user switchable and yes I readed too that ST article about and yes there could be " problems " if the designer does not knows how implement it with out side effects, not an easy task but we did it.
You could take note of those Neumann " problems " when you hear the Dartzeel Phonolinepreamp that came with this Neumann characteristic that's not switchable in the Dartzeel.
In the other side, don't you think that if the LPs were recorded with that Neumann correction ( or something similar. ) the best way to reproduce those LPs is through a Phonolinepreamp with a GOOD implemented Neumann correction?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: The Neumann correction is a lot more complex than only " solder a resistor ", I can't disclose our Essential circuit design on this subject but I think we did it " proper ".
About Dartzeel I think you have to hear it but if not suffice is to say that it has +1.8 db at 20 khz deviation using the Neumann correction.
Of course you already has that resistor then use it, hear and decide.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear In_shore: In the Clearaudio site there is no wood specification. Through some Virtuoso review I read that the orange/red is made from Fernambuk that's a German tree but I can't confirm it. Yes, the black one seems as ebony with a Clearaudio " treatment " but again : who really knows.
Btw, that you abandoned metal for wood on arm board could say a lot against metal material on arm boards. I have a mix/mixture of experiences with arm board with no clear " winner ". Arm board build material resonances has an influence in what we heard/hear in any audio system but due to the multiple inter-relationship between so many different factros with influence in the quality performance of TT/tonearm/cartidge is not easy to indentify with no place to doubt which arm board material is the best one. We can find out that in an specific set-up this or that material works but in a different environment things could change. Experimenting is the name of the game in this arm board build material subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Fleib: I owned the 108 and nothing important to remember. Denon was not a " high " name on MM cartridges those times, at least in America, and IMHO was not a real challenge to all other MM old time competiors for bisiness.
I never heard the 109 and to say it was/is the " best MM ever " could be true if the seller tell us against which other MM/MI cartridges he made his comparisons and in which audio system and obviously why he made that statement: what support it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear John_gordon: Yes, the way it is utilised and where I can add is important.
I feel that there is not to much research ( scientific one. ) on build materials/mix for TT/tonearms or cartridges other than what experiences on " playback " told us.
Same materials in a different product " configuration "/mix sounds different as you said. The resonant beahvior between tonearm and cartridge is something complex for say the least but those resonances are the ones that put on the signature on that couple and this means its quality performance level ( everything the same. ). There are many ( other. ) factors/parameters involve there that " shows " its influence in that mechanical/electrical " circuit ".
I think that some of us ( me by sure. ) have to learn several " things " on the whole subject.
Many of the persons that posted here knows the importance on cartridge performance with which headshell performs better and said " headshell " means ( between other things. ): headshell build materials, same cartridge with different build material headshells ( even with the same headshell weight. ) performs different.
As I said we have continue to learn.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Jorsan: Yes, positive. Only slightly. This is a patience work that gives you a worth rewards. As I said in the review the Virtuoso never performs " bad " at any VTA/SRA set up and this characteristic is what makes that find out the sweet spot takes more time.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: Well, I'm more interested on your experiences than in Clearaudio ones.
I'm just waiting Griffithds experiences/comparison with both cartridges.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Jorsan: I don't have first hand experiences with that cartridge in those tonearms but seems to me that can works with the Clearaudio.
If the SME model you posted is a universal removable headshell then my vote is for it.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Jorsan: I forgot, that " Bingo " came from here not by me:http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&4890&4#4890
I'm sure that Griffithds will share his experience with you.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm/friends: +++++ " I have no opinion on this Neumann issue, only curiosity. Many years ago, Ralph Karsten told me where to install a resistor in the RIAA section of my MP1 preamp so as to introduce the Neumann correction. " +++++
well, I asked because if it is true that the recordings comes ( almost all ) with a RIAA correction ( Neumann or what ever. ) at the high frequency range then seems to me that the " right " way to play does LPs is with an inverse RIAA eq. that mimic it on that correction too.
Why any one of us could want to play LPs with a different eq. with what was recorded?, I mean if we want to preserve the recorded signal integrity to be nearest to the recording.
The subject here is not if the Neumann correction on playback could introduce " problems/distortions " for an improper design/implementation but the validity to use an inverse eq. correction on playback.
What do you think?, maybe it is time that phono stage designers take it in count in their designs, don't you think?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Griffithds/Fleib: The alternative to find out how " long " could goes the Virtuoso with different cantilever/stylus approaches is a good one too especially because in stock status showed very good quality performance.
Of course that as Fleib point out any single change to the Virtuoso makes a voicing change but this is what " we " are trying to find out, we can't make it with out change the original voicing: even my sample is a little different from the original.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Stltrains: I don't know you but me for several years was facinated for external added equalization. I owned multiple and different type of equalizers. I remember my Crown, Souncraftsman, MXR, Machintosh, Levinson, Klark Teknic, DBX or Accuphase ( and more. ). Always trying to compensate for ears and audio system deficiencies and just for fun. In those times I was unaware what RIAA inverse eq. ment and I remember that when I readed that a Soundcraftsman integrated came with RIAA eq. I try to get it only because that RIAA eq.!!!: this was my knowledge level.
Time to time comes to my mind those old times and I think: what if I take my Klark-Teknic equalizer ( I don't know even where it is. ) and connect in my AS?, till today I never did it but I think could be interesting and maybe we can take advantage of today technology and in specific with digital equalizers units. Thuchan presume because his unit had " seven " eq. options, with an add-on equalizer we can have as many as we want or imagine: not big deal if you have the right equalizer or as you the add-on eq. electronic circuit.
That kind of system equalization is a good alternative and interesting too but I'm refering to other eq. alternative: the one that can mimic ( inverse ) what is in the recording. I think that always is important to find out " what is in the recording " before try to alter it. The Neumann correction is IMHO a good " place " to begin with as is what some phono stages already do like the EMT unit that Thuchan owns.
Along this alternative what is interesting too could be to correct the cartridge frequency response deviations from flat response but here maybe we need a " near perfect " LP track test with recorded 20 hz to 20 khz frequency range.
Anyway, several alternatives but this time my focus is in: what do you think on my Neumann correction original question? recordings with the Neumann corection most be hear it with phono stages that mimic that RIAA correction ( inverse. ) or it does not matters?
Regards and enjoy the music, raul.
|
Dear Stltrains: http://www.stereophile.com/features/cut_and_thrust_riaa_lp_equalization/index.html
http://www.klaus-boening.de/html/timeconstant.html
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Griffithds: I agree with Fleib. There has to be an improvement/revision on the " moving system " to pass from that 80um to the 90um, this was not at random but on purpose. This IMHO is the main difference or at least the one you could hear it on playback.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum: Between my specific test recordings that I use or used through the years are the STR 112 ( CBS ) that has square-wave test, intermodulation test and some other tests, the other one that could help you is the SRT 14 from Stereo Review. As a fact there are several old specific test recordings that you have to find out through the net/ebay.
I think that is almost impossible not only to have the specific test track we are looking for but that the recording be at today quality performance standards.
Btw, I think that I still have 3-4 of those old equalizers, maybe could be time to test it and use it: why not?.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |