Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
rauliruegas

Showing 50 responses by dlaloum

Hi Raul

with regards to microphonics on various AT bodies, there was a recent posting on AK where someone repaired their AT20 and posted photos...

Seing it appart made me realise the potential in for potting.

There is quite a bit of air in there... and a substantial opportunity for potential improvement through the judicious application of LipBalm (softens nicely with a touch of heat, and is solid and damping at room temperature...)- or alternate damping material.

Fleib has also experimented with potting the AT95, with positive results I believe...

I do not know whether any (all?) of the TK series were potted (interesting question - anyone taken some of these appart?)

I continue to wonder what would be the result of combining a top Body like the old TK9/10 with a current Ruby cantilever stylus.... (custom retip obviously) - and perhaps to finish it off nicely potting?

Another interesting cart would be a Ruby Cantilever V15V too...

bye for now

David
A small comment with regards to an Aurum Classic upgraded with Boron cantilever, etc... vs the Virtuoso.

I have no idea how the CA's are tuned, and whether they are tuned similarly, however...

I have 3 Jico SAS styli, same manufacturer, 3 slightly different models (V15VMR, V15VxMR, M97xE)... Mechanically they appear identical, but an analysis of their response shows that they have differing resonance profiles.

What I am trying to say is that just because the cantilever is identical does not necessarily make it sound the same - the resonance substantially contributes to the sound of a stylus, and that resonance can be altered and tuned by adjusting the damping/suspension.

So the exercise would no doubt be interesting - but it will not necessarily be identical to an original CA cartridge.
It may be, but it is more likely that it will produce an excellent but slightly different cartridge.

As a further aside, the "ultimate" cantilevers by both Shure and Technics were hollow... and Technics was quite keen on trumpeting that their hollow boron cantilevers were superior to the equivalent made of diamond or ruby/Sapphire.

To the best of my knowledge no one is making hollow exotic cantilevers (boron, beryllium, diamond, Ruby/Sapphire) any more.... or have I missed a vendor somewhere?

bye for now

David
Thank you Henry

Yes - fantastic and fascinating article...
Vinyl records - the impossible medium... so many things that cannot be achieved perfectly, and yet the end approximation we get can be so damn good!

It is interesting that the TT101 and related JVC drives appear to use a similar design principle to the Rockport Sirius III...

I wonder how many other drives are out there that use similar principles?

bye for now

David
Hi Halcro,

I look forward to hearing the Professor's input - but my take on the Signet range.... (I have a TK7su, TK4Ep, TK6Ep, TK9, TK10,MR5.0) is that they are hand picked standard AT items...
There may be other mods applied to them (potting?) but in inductance and resistance terms they each have an equivalent in the normal AT range.
The Styli body shapes were a bit different, and gripped the side of the cartridge body better (which does improve things) - and the stylus specs, cantilever, needles were often individual.

The TK9/10 do not appear to be at all different to their AT relatives (AT21/22/23/24/25)- other than in the available styli options. - And in the current market the only real options now are retipping/recantilevering.

The TK7Su seems no different (allowing for manufacturing tolerances ) from the AT20SLa, or the AT12sa. - Slight body differences in shape and materials (12 is plastic.., shape and structure of AT20 and TK7 vary a bit) - generator looks the same.

I just picked up a spare AT20SLa body, and am considering potting it....a mod that is relatively simple, easily achieved with minimal risk and may provide a noticeable step up... (for a cartridge that is already one of my favourites!)

Acman3 - with regards to the MR5 - how are you loading it?
Have you considered a custom loading option? - dropping the R load or adjusting the C load may fix the excess brightness!
The AT440MLa tends to sound best on a lowered resistance - around 35k.... which tames the excess brightness. This is not uncommon with many of the AT designs!

Bye for now

David
Hi Don,

the 20ss is a solid beryllium cantilever... whereas the AT20SLa is a tapered aluminium tube.

I'm not sure about a coating, I think it may just be natural oxidation....

Grado's definitely have a damping layer on the cantilever, and the current Audio Technica solid Boron cantilevers use a sputtered gold coating... so it is definitely not out of the question...
Just reviewed my stylus photos of the ATN15ss, looks to me like a natural dull metalic finish, not a coating.

bye for now

David
Hi Don

the Shibata patent specifies two needle widths (major radius) a small and a large one (45um and 75um)

The small shibata may be the miniature shibata you mentioned (ideally finding the stylus specs would help, check the major and minor radius...)

The small shibata sizing is quite similar to many HE styli, stereohedron and a number of other well regarded styli.

Due to the smaller major radius, the contact patch vertical height/length will be shorter. The larger the major radius, the longer the contact patch. (Widest one I know of is the Ortofon replicant at 100um)

I am not sure there is any advantage to the smaller shibata (and the other smaller major radius needles) - although they may be marginally more economical to manufacture... (less diamond mass required?)
Seems to me that all the top styli are large major radius.

Anyone care to comment on advantages that might accrue to the mid size line contact designs?

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib,

measures specs from my TK7su and AT20sla

TK7SU 487ohm / 448mH
AT20SLa 476ohm / 451mH
AT20SLa 476ohm / 453mH

Within manufacturing tolerances they do appear to be identical.

BUT - different shape, materials, stylus mounting - they may have slightly differing vibrational behaviour.

Also the differing size/shape bodies may respond differently to potting. (although I expect differences would be slight)

I wish I had a truly high quality plastic bodied version of this generator (with perfectly matched channels like the AT20!) - I think the reduced mass in combination with some potting would result in a potentially better combination...

Thanks for the info Nandric...

This makes me thing that the rods are available in differing diameters - the larger diameters being used for the larger major radius styli, the mid size for the small shibatas, HE, Fineline, etc... and the smallest ones for spherical/conical and elipticals. (at respective price points...)
In terms of labour, the Shibata appears to be one of the most economical high end styli - which probably explains its ongoing popularity...

The comment about the MicroRidge from Axel does not gel with other information I have read...
The Microridge is Shure's proprietary name for the Namiki design (which does indeed have a published patent) - this is the same design which is used by Jico for the SAS and AT for the Microline. (and others)
Apparently various versions of this design are available made to differing minor radius (and other) specs.
Perhaps Axel has not succeeded in establishing a relationship with Namiki?

For those interested in much more detail about stylus shapes , patents and stylus related data - there is a thread on VE called "Stylus Shapes" - which is an absolute treasure trove of information.

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib,

yes I have some spec sheets for the AT20 family...

The one I have that has the AT11/12/13/14/15ss/20ss quotes 450mH and 500ohm.

The almost identical one in the VE library which has the AT15SLa/AT20SLa quotes 370mH/500ohm

I have tried a few times via "the auction site" to purchase AT15 or AT20 bodies in the hope of landing a 370mH exemplar.

So far without any luck whatsoever!

With regards to LC vs Shibata - the difference is very very marginal - period Audio Technica catalogues specifically call it a modified Shibata.
It appears to have a couple of front cuts/planes which may result in the contact patch being straight rather than slightly curved (similar to hughes/stereohedron shape?).

But the minor radius is about the same as shibata/HE and is not the much finer minor radius of the Microline/VdH/FG types...

With Shibata/LC/HE you have a minor radius of between 5um and 6um ... with the "exotics" (Namiki, VdH, FG) the minor radius is between 4um and 2um (most commonly 2.5um on current ones, the early ones such as the Shure Microridge had 3.5um)

So the Shibata/LC with the large major radius have all the advantages of the long contact patch, but slightly reduced resolution in the high frequency range... possibly increased distortion in the HF range.
Is that increased resolution actually audible? - it is primarily above 15kHz- where even for those who can hear it, actual hearing acuity is reduced... and distortion, being primarily harmonic, may not be relevant as the 2nd harmonic would be 30kHz... and then up!
The Ridge types however, will maintain that very narrow side radius as they wear down, whereas the Shibata/LC/HE types will have gradually increasing minor radius as it wears.

So the real difference may be in the way that it sounds not when new, but when 250, 500, 750, or 1000hrs old - where the more basic styli will have gradual deterioration (hard to notice.... bit like the slow boiling of a frog...) - while the exotics will perform up to new spec for a long long time, before suddenly deteriorating massively. (a better thing as it is easier to tell when it is time to replace the stylus!)

And I'm with Fleib with regards to voicing - it's the cantilever... and we can voice the end product as we wish by adjusting the loading.
Which allows us to choose the cantilever and needle based on technical parameters (distortion, tracking ability, compliance, other...) - and then voice the way we like it.
Previously all cartridges were "pret a porter" - with cartridge loading we can have our cartridge properly tailored.

bye for now

David
Hi Don,

you must remember the BS is a high quality fertiliser guaranteed to encourage growth...

And the welfare of the people requires a good economy with a lot of growth - ergo BS is a good thing...

0.3mil is roughly 7um
0.7mil is roughly 18um

It is a relatively "fat" side radius but well within the scope of what one might call the Audiophile category - especially given the nude solid diamond chunk they use! The quality of the upper AT needles is quite lovely under the microscope!

The 50kHz freq. response is a little bit pushing credibility with that stylus and cantilever though!
Of course they did not specify at what level (achieving 50kHz at +/-25db is relatively easy, doing the same within +/-10db is quite difficult!)
Nor did they specify what level of distortion is being generated at 50kHz... (and given the side radius, that is likely to be substantial!)

The advantage of line contact is that the load is spread over a wider contact patch, not the high frequency performance, as a Shibata has the same side radius (and therefore HF performance) as a 0.2mil minor radius eliptical.

BUT - because of the small contact patch, a 0.2mil eliptical is very likely to wear away those high frequencies, where a shibata (or other LC design) will spread the load and therefore reduce the wear.

When they started developing CD4 Quad, which required 50kHz within -15db, they found that with the eliptical needles wear was a problem, and they were rapidly losing the HF material after a few plays - the Shibata solved this problem. (As did its competitors the paralinears, hyperbolics, hyperelipticals, stereohedrons etc...)

I have difficulty with their applying the "Microline" tag to it as well - with a major radius of only 18um the contact patch will be a standard eliptical elipse - and nothing like a line of contact.

Audio Technica also have the AT33PTG (PTG = Prestige) - which they claim has a Micro Linear stylus...
I have not seen them claim anything other than eliptical for the AT33EV (perhaps a typo on your source website??)
According to the AT site, the cantilever on the AT33PTG is Tapered boron, probably gold sputtered same as the OC9 and AT150...
On the same AT website they clearly state that the stylus is eliptical for the AT33EV and there is no mention of Microline...

I definitely think the website where you sourced that data is applying too much "growth factor".

bye for now

David
Don,

using the growth factor on the head is no problem... but I could not continue the treatment as my other half required me to alter my olfactory exudations....

Fleib,

the DL-S1 and capacitance - why not simply use a high quality audiophile high capacitance cable?
There are quite a few of these around, and it avoids adding a capacitor per-se in the signal path... Providing perhaps a sonically better alternative?
(The downside would be needing to have RCA socket outs on the TT, rather than a flying lead... with the additional connections and capacitance involved...)
Hi Folks,
was just re-reading the Van den Hull Phono FAQ's document...

Came across the following:
Q: Is a sapphire cantilever better than a Boron one
A: The specific weight of sapphire is higher so the mass influence of this cantilever on the response is also bigger. ALso the material is stronger, so in case of an accident you may have damaged more than you did expect. So personally I do not mount or use any sapphire.

I also note that although Dynavector uses a Diamond cantilever on the Karat (and ruby on earlier models) they use Boron on the TOTL XV.

It appears that gemstone cantilevers are possibly stiffer than boron, but also heavier... so for a short cantilever where mass is less of an issue ruby/sapphire or diamond cantilevers may make sense, but when the cantilever is longer, boron may be optimal?

Axel uses Aluminium, Boron and Carbon Fibre (no mention of gemstone cantilevers) - I don't know where and how carbon fibre fits into the scheme of things... although there have been some comments by designers saying they did not like its "sound"

Audio Technica's AT150ANV carries a sapphire cantilever... the AT family cantilevers are all long, so will the sapphire cantilever be a step up or a step down?!? (it is good for marketing, but is it good for sound?)

SoundSmith also use ruby/sapphire (same material different trace elements I believe - both are corundum and have the same hardness and specific gravity) for their top cantilevers - Why? and why not Boron? - Are the SMMC cartridges another design that uses a relatively short cantilever? (and therefore mass is less of an issue)

Also what form of Boron is used in cantilevers?
Boron Carbide is harder than sapphire (9.3 vs 9) but lighter (specific gravity of 2.5 vs 4) - is this what the cantilevers are made of? - seems to me it has better properties (if so why use ruby/Sapphire) !?

I'm sitting here scratching my head.... anyone got any light to shed on this?

bye for now

David
On the topic of stylus costs retipping and value for money... my personal take:

Some of the cartridges that are now becoming well known through this thread, are now starting to sell at $100 to $200 without a stylus.

A retip for a TK9 (taking an example) - will cost around $350 for TOTL cantilever with line contact stylus.

A NOS LCA stylus for the TK9 is now $500 - making the retip service excellent value! (http://www.pickupnaalden.com/grammofoonnaalden.asp?M=Signet_TK-9-LCA_Goud_5619)

For those cartridges where Jico have a SAS stylus available, nothing gets even close to the value of the SAS styli. (and they have the SAS available for many cartridges!)

With regards to comparative pricing - I did some calculations on retail pricing, applying CPI increases to retail prices of classic styli...

Many of our classic favourites, were we to purchase them new today, would be priced between $700 and $1500.

And with replacement styli usually being around 75% of the new cost of a cartridge, I believe we are getting incredibly good value for money from the retippers.

The 75% appears to hold true for MC cartridges too, where the trade in discount for a worn out stylus replacement with a new cartridge is usually around 20% to 25%. (although this is a little off topic for this forum.... even though we tend to stroll down interesting byways in our conversations!)

The whole point of this thread was to raise peoples awareness to the performance potential of classic high inductance cartridge designs. - This continues to hold true.
Can an EPC100mk4 (one of the alltime champions of MM) face off in the ring against a Koetsu Coralstone / Clearaudio Goldfinger / ZYX Diamond / Pick your favourite top MC contender.... - I don't know, as I am not playing at that level... (just not willing to plonk down $15k on a cartridge)

However those among us here who have had MC's in the $x000 level, are consistently telling us that our top MM/MI cartridges are holding their own.

So we have good reason to believe that we can achieve performance in the high end audiophile league from an MM which even with the cost of a TOTL retip included, is still likely to end up costing under $500.

BUT: a reminder for the neophyte reading the thread...
Getting the best out of most of these MM/MI cartridges requires a low mass and/or fluid damped arm (in some cases appropriately designed bearing friction does the same function) - and the cartridge loading, both capacitive and resistive must be considered - life is simpler in MC land.

For those seeking a simple life, vinyl has long since ceased being an option - and perhaps therein is the secret of the nascent resurgence of MM.

bye for now

David
Hi Timeltel,
does your analytical opinion of the AT440MLa still apply when it is run with a 35k load instead of 47k?

The conical discussion is interesting - they can be pleasant to listen to because there sins are sins of omission rather than commission - better to hear less, undistorted, than more but distorted ?

But the argument that conicals provide a superior reproducer to lie contact.... hmmmm

bye for now

David
Raul - I disagree with your conclusion regarding High Frequency sensitivity and the article Timeltel posted.

What none of these research articles have identified is what the mechanism whereby we sense the HF content is.

This article very specifically identified that the test subjects could not differentiate between silence and HF alone. - So no conscious sensing of the HFC.

We do however know that in the presence of both HFC and LFC (normal audio... Low Frequency Content) intermodulation occurs... ie the interaction between the two tones produces other tone(s) - generally considered to be intermodulation distortion (IMD).

Unlike the HFC, the IMD generated by the combination of HFC and LFC will have components within the LFC Zone.
These will obviously only be present when the LFC is present.

The risk is this - in the hope of improving fidelity we incorporate supertweeters into our systems and attempt to reproduce wide range audio...

On the recording we already have the recorded audible intermodulations of the ultra high frequencies with the audible frequencie... by replaying them again we are encouraging further intermodulation and therefore potentially going backwards by providing an additional source of distortion.

We know that ultra high frequencies are sensed somehow... but the attempt to reproduce that effect in a recording is definitely in the black art category.... and as such likely not to progress until we really do understand what is going on.

bye for now

David
p.s. theoretically my speakers go up to 35kHz (at least) - maybe I should check some of my LP's for content over 20kHz? - but then how can one tell whether that is true content, or merely distortions generated by the recording and cutting equipment?
We have all the tools we need to measure frequency response... - and some of the other values.

Spectrum analyser software is built into many audio editing software packages (CoolEdit, Adobe Audition) - or you can purchase (or find some freeware/shareware RTA/FFT there are a few around)

Then you will need some test tracks...

HFN test record provide a pink noise test track which is reliable to around 16kHz.

The classic CBS test records provide both sweeps and spot signals - the sweeps can be used the same way as the pink noise to get an overall F/R.

The Spots can be used (manually, it takes a while!) to measure harmonic distortion as well as frequency response.

Keep in mind that a pink noise or sweep using an FFT averaging analyser, INCLUDES the harmonic distortions as part of the frequency response - some people believe this best reflects actual performance - I am not convinced, I prefer a measurement that separates the signal from the distortion where possible. But the spot measurements take around 10 times as long to do ...

Measuring other parameters of cartridge behaviour are much more difficult!!

I have (with he assistance and huge input of LuckyDog at VE) developed a spreadsheet model, into which I can feed the measurements of a cartridges actual frequency response measurement, and then deduct from it the theoretical electrical response(based on inductance / resistance / capacitance and standard models) - the end result shows the "flaws" it he system as a "sum" - but it cannot seperate out mechanical cantilever issues from electro magnetic non-linearities.

Still this spreadsheet has allowed me to see the imperfections - whether my conclusions as to their causes are valid or not is a different matter!
Cantilever resonances are relatively obvious... (assuming I have them right!)
The mid-high range drop is more difficult - some documents appear t indicate that eddy currents occur in this zone - and that might account for part of it.
Some Shure docs. mention skew/twist of the cantilever as causing the drop in these frequencies - and the rise in harmonic distortion that accompanies it seems to indicate the Shure cause is more likely - but perhaps it is a combination of both? - no way of seperating them out.

We also have the test tracks needed to measure intermodulation distortion by international standards... (I have not tried this yet...)

BUT - making these measurements takes a lot of time and effort....

Whether it is worth it to you... is up to you and what you value obviously!

Also my approach is aimed at a system where you do your best to make the entire system and each component within it as neutral as possible.

People who listen to only a single source (ie turntable) may opt to "tune" their system by choosing an appropriate cartridge setup. - this is no different to equalisation, or adjusting the bass/treble dials - but apparently has audiophile cred., whereas using the much despised tone controls or worse, much worse! (in hushed tones) - an equaliser - will get you drummed out of all audiophile circles.

bye for now

David
Hi Fleib,

I have not dig into the aspects of compliance / tone-arm mass beyond the basic resonance.

LuckyDog on VE built an interesting damping calculator spreadsheet ...

The Japanese manufacturers quote the compliance at 100Hz because it is a better measure of the suspension damping.

I believe that there is another key to performance matching in the damping of the inherent suspension of the cantilever and the inherent damping built into the tonearm bearings.

I have a feeling that LuckyDog may have built another very usefull tool in that calculator - but have not had the time/inclination to get my head around that .. yet.

The spreadsheet is here : http://www.luckydog.demon.co.uk/images/loafer.xls

And the related thread is here:
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=36347

This vinyl replay stuff never ends does it !? :)

bye for now

David
Hi Timeltel,

thanks for that link... Doug and JCarr's postings are particularly interesting.

What they do not discuss is the relationship between compliance and the level of energy transferred to cartridge/arm.

Lower compliance / firmer suspension, transfers more energy into the arm - as it must, given that it needs to overcome greater intertia/mass in a well matched setup.

High compliance, matched with a lower mass arm, as a result passes far less energy on. And as a corollary, requires less damping in the arm - which is a good thing, as damping usually adds mass, and the arm needs less mass not more!

Issues like sibilance, and inner groove distortion (the main thrust of that link) - are related to tracking ability, combined with minimising reflected energy coming back into the cartridge from the arm...

All of which becomes easier to achieve with a high compliance classic design - like the MM/MI's that we discuss in this thread.

Perhaps a thread focusing on low mass arms might be a good companion to this thread?

bye for now

David
Hi Raul,

totally agree - each and every material has its own damping properties...
So every tonearm has some degree of damping built in, and choice of materials will then allow some level of tuning of the damping.
Also every material and shape will have its own resonance points... which we really really do not want to activate!

Carbon fibre seems to be among the best of the low mass materials - the other one is natural woods....
Perhaps one of the heavier grades of balsa?
Or maybe Spruce? (used to be used for aircraft....)

bye for now

David
I believe JCarr made the same comments about using carbon fibre in cantilevers...

Speaking theoretically - achieving total neutrality requires the ultimate in damping materials - there should be no vibrations there other than the ones originally laid down as part of the recording.

BUT - in an imperfect world where there are going to be vibrations in any case - a material providing natural vibrations that are in-tune with music (natural sounding harmonics) simply sound better than those that tend towards inharmonic (uneven or IMD) distortions.

Still there are many very well regarded low mass arms from the 80's that used CF...
Having read with interest the extensive recent discussions about AKG (!)...

Here are some questions:

1) How many body SHAPES are there ? (it appears that P6/7/8 were the same shape with interchangeable needles?, Then there is the P10? what about the P25 and P25mkII?)
2) Do all the bodies of a particular shape have the same electrical parameters ? (ie inductance and resistance...)
3) Do all the bodies of a particular shape have the same internal construction method? eg: type of wire, core laminations, core materials, "slit pins" (in ortofon names/structure) etc...

Much as our discussion and analysis of the CA family led to the conclusion that one could purchase the most economical member of the family and upgrade it to the TOTL version, is the same true of the AKG family? - Or certain parts of it?

In the ADC world the XLM/QLM/VLM/ZLM/...etc... family also have this property where the stylus defines the cartridge - where the body stays the same and in most cases is identical up and down the range.

So can one purchase a P6 and fit it with the X8ES stylus?
And will the result then be a P8ES (regardless of labels on the body?)

bye for now

David
Thanks Mike - I pulled the specs of VE...

The P25MD24/35 (series II) and the P8ES-Supernova and the P15S appear to be the same body (based on electrical parameters)
Is it right that these four have interchangeable styli?

P25MD (series I) - seems to be its own thing

P6, P7, P8 seem to be the same presumably with interchangeable styli (with of course the exception of the Supernova which is in fact a P25MD24/35 body)

Does that correctly summarise the upper end AKG stylus info?
Three cheers for the optimistic perfectionist....

And as for AS.... my Revox Linatrack does not appear to require any! ;-)

Apparently some listeners still use those archaic beam on a pivot systems....
A simpler and more reversible option rather than glue, is a tiny sliver of blue-Tack or plasticine along the inside edge of the stylus holder (away from the cantilever shank)

Although this is an elastomeric connection rather than the "hard" connection provided by glue - the difference is often substantial... (and measurable on some of my tests...)

Depending on how much plasticine and how loose tight the fit is, there is some room for adjustment.
The risk is that the elastomer can move - so it might not be perfect...
The benefit is that the combination acts as an additional CLD layer - so some extraneous vibration is converted to heat... (that's the theory anyway...)

bye for now

David
This vendor has quite a range of rare vintage styli as well... but at prices that make a top of the line Ruby retip look like a very reasonable economy option!
Hi Nandric,

I have a strong feeling that the AT180 and TK8CL solid beryllium cantilevers (I think?) would be very very similar to the currently available solid boron.
Differences would not be of an order of magnitude in any case.

Whereas with something like the Technics boron tube cantilevers I would expect the differences between the original and a new "solid" cantilever to be much greater (and worse).

I Have a TK9 and TK25 body both of which are waiting their turn for a new stylus or retip.....
I do not know whether ruby or boron would be the better option... but am in no hurry, so I keep reading here and stocking up the "information bank"...

bye for now
David
Regarding Re-Cantilevered cartridges:

I just want to remind people that it is not as simple as getting a cartridge "retipped".

There is a LOT of work that went into the very best cantilevers, and looking at something like the EPC100 and its close relatives with CVD Boron tube cantilevers, there is NOTHING in todays market at ANY price that matches these.

The objective of this very sophisticated cantilever was to move resonances out beyond 70kHz - the only other cartridge series that I know of that achieve this, are the Dynavector Karat series, who achieve it by having a very very short cantilever (less than 3mm.. varying by version)

Taking an EPC100 and placing a "ordinary" exotic cantilever on it (boron, ruby, etc..) will result in a much lower resonance frequency, and with the bell curve of frequency/amplitude extending more than an octave downwards, a high likelihood of a rising top end is the result. (And is one of the reasons why almost all MC's have a rising top end!)

The Pickering/Stanton cantilevers were good but nowhere near that level of sophistication, and it is quite likely that they can be replaced with the currently available exotics with equivalent or better performance.
They key here being the effective tip mass achieved and the rigidity of the cantilever...

The second issue is related to how a relatively neutral uncoloured response (frequency) is achieved on an MM/MI high inductance cartridge. (yes I am excluding the Stanton 980LZS/Pickering XLZ7500).

I have mentioned it before but it bears repeating when we are talking about re-tipping. - The retipped stylus will have a different frequency response due to having a different resonant frequency. (in the case of multi-part telescoped styli like Grado or SAS several resonant frequencies) - but the inductance, capacitance and resistance setup of the cartridge is based on a set of assumptions about the frequency response (caused by the resonant frequency) - once you change the resonant frequency (by changing the stylus) - you can only achieve a neutral response once more by adjusting C & R to compensate....

I agree that many (but not all) of these cartridges can be improved over their "new" configuration.
Certainly all the AT's with the solid boron or beryllium cantilevers can be at least matched with current boron or ruby cantilevers.
Stantons/Pickering may be able to be bettered.
Shure's beryllium tube cantilevers - again, nothing out there like it today - it is possible that a ruby cantilever would get close... but my gut feeling is that even the ruby cantilever will bring the resonant frequency down lower than the original.

Another remark - Raoul's proposal of using 100k loading definitely raises the amplitude of the resonance at the rolloff frequency (generated by the LCR EQ circuit created by loading + inductance)- but whether that is a good or bad thing will depend A LOT on the particular setup....
In many cases better results are achieved with a lowered R load than with a raised one - each setup has to be measured then adjusted for best possible results!

bye for now

David
Timeltel, you left out the low output members of the family..

Stanton 980LZ and Pickering XLZ7500s

The XLZ7500s is 3ohm and 1mH
I have also seen the XSV3000/XSV3003 quoted as 500ohm/270mH which makes it identical to the Stanton Collectors series 100...

bye for now

David
Hi Don,

I don't think pressure fit is possible on a solid boron cantilever...

The tip is therefore bonded (it sits in a dab of glue on the tip - I posted some photos on VE in the stylus shape thread)
It looks almost identical to the method also used by AT on their Solid boron cantilever microline styli (photos of these out there as well)

Is the Stylus1 a match for the Grace F9 and close relatives?

I know that people have hybridised Grace bodies with Shure styli (shank removed from plastic mounting inserts perfectly into Grace body apparently) - and the SAS styli may be in the same boat - but it the surround also fits that is a substantial bonus!

bye for now

David
Sebastien - sibilance has two likely/possible causes:

1) Mistracking - this need not be gross mistracking of the needle jumping from the groove type, but even slight mistracking will quickly lead to audible issues at the high end....
Causes of mistracking...
arm mass / cartridge compliance mismatch
Cartridge & arm alignment / adjustment
Bad/Worn out/damaged stylus

2) Rising top end - if your setup has the wrong cartridge loading you may be boosting the sibilant frequency zones and therefore highlighting sibilance - always worth while checking the cartridge loading!

HTH

bye for now

David
Don, is "too relaxed" code for a dropping top end?
If so it is fixable with lowered capacitance or raised resistance...
Hi Don,

terms like "smooth" and "romantic" are usually problematic...
They have a strong tendency towards subjectivism.... and as a result can mean something different to each and every person.

Usually when I see the two used together, the cartridges for which they are used tend towards having a more prominent mid and lower range with a slightly depressed high end eg: Shure V15VxMR.

The risk when fishing with non specific bait, is you might catch non-specific fish!

Bye for now

David
Lewm - drop Axel a line, he responds in good English... he may even be able to handle American..
Griffithds - I believe that Empire manufactured their own cartridge initially... and that the 888/999/1000/2000/3000/4000 series were all home designed... (although stylus manufacture might well have been farmed out)

Later things get very murky, with Astatic Japan, Azden/Piezo, and also BenzMicro & even Ortofon making kit for the Empire brand...

Lots of rebranding in the later Empires (some of which was very good indeed... the BenzMicro MC's and the Ortofon MC's were no slouches!)

But the 2000 / 4000 are authentic Empire...

bye for now

David
Neutrality - ability to reproduce the frequency spectrum correctly (ie: flat frequency response - one problem with magnetic systems is that the frequency response varies according to level... as the signal itself acts as a biasing current into the coils of the cartridge)

Colouration - anomalies in the frequency response - usually peaks or troughs limited to a narrow range of frequencies are identifiable as a colouration - a smooth rise or fall isn't usually interpreted as colouration, more likely to be described as warm/cool, perhaps bright or smooth...

Transparency - this one is much harder to quantify - usually it is about the ability to discern the details... the micro rather than the macro of the recording, without those details necessarily becoming prominent (ie: not a colouration as above...)
I think it may be closely related to speed/nimbleness/effective tip mass...
Some people focus on the soundstage / imaging when talking about transparency - personally I think soundstage / imaging are a side effect... if you have more detail exposed clearly, you imaging improves...

Fluidity / Coherence..... IMO these are time or phase related.
In a live acoustic performance, the sounds are in a clear and precise time based synchronicity....
I am not just talking about the rhythm of the music - which is the performance per se... but the many harmonics flooding the room from the different surfaces of the musical instrument - these are directly related to the musicians actions on the instrument - related in time based terms.
As has been discovered with digital jitter, time based errors that are extremely minute, can have a distincat and audible impact on the end result...
This is where the best cartridges are separated from the rest....
Anything that involves a resonance, will also involve 1) A colouration (peak/drop) 2) A phase shift / Timing errors
Also the base LCR circuit created by the cartridge also has phase implications - much more so for high inductance MM's than for very low inductance MC's.
To make things more difficult for the average listener, all these timing related issues are complete obfuscated by the plethora of speakers out there that do not reproduce 20-20k in proper phase coherency. (if the speaker is messing with the timing already, how can you possibly tell whether the cartridge is doing a good or bad job..... rhetorical)

Finally there is Speed / Dynamics - the ability to accurately reproduce the incredibly steep rise time of the many sounds of music.
Repeating myself a bit here - but effective tip mass is the absolute most important thing. (for the same reason that electrostatic speakers are so dynamic and transparent) - this is also the key to micro detail...

So we get to "Musicality"....

To me this is a value judgement of the sum of the above categories, where someone is basically approving of the chosen blend of compromises made in the design.
It is usually accepting of flaws, as part of the judgement made is that the flaws are of lesser importance than the strengths. It has been weighed on the scales of audiophilia and found to be "Musical".

Basically all you can say when someone calls a component musical is that they liked it regardless of and perhaps in spite of, its flaws.

Is it euphonic - no way of knowing, is it coloured - ditto... it says NOTHING about the particulars and everything about the listeners ultimate reaction to it.
The very definition of a subjective term!

bye for now

David
LOL - Plus ca change ....

I have to say that I am guilty to subscribing to the school of thought that states that if the measurement does not properly relate to the empirical experience, then you are not measuring the right thing.

The field of psycho acoustics is still one where new research is being done, and understanding is limited.

Given that our measured / quantitative knowledge of hearing is incomplete (at best)... it is difficult to attempt to take our subjective and variable language and try to find some universal measuring sticks with which to gauge our vague language so we can all know what we are talking about.

After all isn't that exactly what international standards are all about - an agreed way of defining a metre or a gram.

The subjectivist side of this debate puts forward that there can be no measuring stick for beauty. (although modelling agency requirements for their staff appear to imply otherwise)

My response to this is that the beauty is in the artform we are endeavouring to reproduce.... it is in the performance that was recorded, and NOT in the reproduction of that recording.

If a bad (ugly) recording is reproduced such that the end result in your listening room is in fact beautiful - an Alchemical transformation - then you have created something new.
(All such Alchemists should be burned at the spindle on a fire of overheated thermionics)

But I am repeating much of what is in the Stereophile article linked above....

I am no auronihilist... but the Stereophile glossary is usefull!

bye for now

David
Another Tri-Center article:
http://www.theaudiobeat.com/blog/magnepan_37_tricenter_system.htm
3D Audio Holography is indeed possible....

And most of the work on the topic was done a couple of generations back....

Blumlein stereo - which in its original version also ideally required 3 speakers at the front. - Stereo being from the greek for "solid" I believe... (solid as in 3D Holographic).

So when somebody speaks of stereo 3D holography, they are merely being tautologous....

Then we get to the difficulty in achieving it...

1) It must be recorded using the Blumlein method (and rare are the recordings that do this!)
2) To replay that recording requires the L & R speakers to be positioned at 90 degrees, rather than the much more common audiophile setup of 60 degrees. - With the widened speaker positioning, a center speaker assists in solidifying the central image. Nothing new in all this, it was worked out more than 50 years ago, but recording and playing back 3 channels was deemed too complicated, so they settled on a two channel system, and then marketing kicked in and said it would be too hard to sell people 3 speakers as opposed to 2.

As people only had 2 speakers and they were too close together to make stereo work properly, recording engineers started getting creative, and creating an artificial impression of stereo, by multimiking performances, then artififically combining the result into an ersatz "image"... and there we have where we are today.
The vast majority of recordings are completely artificial, and given the method of recording, could never actually reproduce the original event, as they are an artifice and not an attempt at reproduction.

Most current recordings are in fact an impressionist version of the original performance rather than a realist painting or photograph.

But now we have new technology - the tech developed for home theatre, technology that allows speakers to be "virtually repositioned" (trinnov) or take a sound field and position items precisely within it... or for us Stereo afficionados - correct for the faulty speaker positioning by adjusting for the speakers being too close together, and extract the center channel out of a stereo recording....

Excellent and fascinating article on experiments in that direction by Magnepan.... http://www.avguide.com/blog/magnepan-s-tri-center-concept-does-stereo-sound-better-three-channels
They are calling it Tri-Center stereo.

This of course does not resolve the lack of blumlein stereo recordings - but it does resolve the issue of properly reproducing them (at least theoretically) - on our standard setups (which are not optimal for Blumlein reproduction!).

QED: Stereo (ie 3d Audio Holography) can be achieved. - but we are not quite there yet.

Which brings us back to the question of a gauge, a standard so we can talk and compare with some possibility of believing that what we are saying will indeed be understood.

Raul's proposal of a standard benchmark set of recordings, that we all own and use as our standards makes a heap of sense. - The problem is it requires that we all purchase the same set of records, some of which may be quite rare / hard to find.

An alternative would be to find a relatively common and readily available compilation of very well recorded tracks, preferably on a single album, that everyone can purchase easily - then reference can be made to specific tracks/details on the one record for minimal effort on the part of all concerned.

The sort of thing I have in mind is some of the sampler ("test") LP's from Opus in sweden.

Or - alternatively - if the august members of this audio fraternity are sufficiently keen (and there are suffient people interested) - it might be possible to select a collection of tracks from a single well known recording house (MF, Opus, etc...) and have our own selection pressed.

Cutting costs for a single LP can be as low as $100... quite a lot of DJ's use this type of facility. (this is not "pressed" but custom cut on a lathe to order)
If it was projected to do a limited run ... increased volume would take the project into a press run and then I have no idea what the costs would be, or what the required volume is...

Would it be possible to identify a dozen tracks, totaling no more than 30minutes all from a single audiophile studio that most people could agree on as a valid basis for comparison.
The goal would be the accurate reproduction in ones home of a live audio event - or the best facsimile thereof that can be achieved.

So where electronic instruments are used, they would need to be recorded via Blumlein methods in a live acoustic environment - eg: Electric guitar through guitar amp and speakers then recorded - not electric guitar straight to recording input... same for synths, etc...

Is this a pipe dream?

Dunno - but it certainly seems to me to be possible

bye for now

David

p.s. I am waiting for them to add Tri-Centre processing to the higher end AV processors....
Sometimes we manage to speak right past each other - apologies for misunderstanding...

Thank you Nandric for translating!

We are of course in violent agreement.
Fleib has it!

Our hearing identifies location based on the time arrival of the sounds relative to each other.

Multimiking completely destroys this time relationship - you can only record this time relationship at a point in space, so your mikes need to be at the same location (or pretty close!), so that they can pick up the amplitude/phase relationship that our hearing requires to then interpret the physical locations.

This is not to say that an engineer cannot through good editting of a multimike feed, create an impressionist rendition of space and location.
But our ability to resolve spatial information aurally is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than any mixing technologies I have heard of to date - so the multimike method never sounds "Real"/"Live".

A Binaural recording listened to through headphones can be incredibly "real"/"live" - which tells us that the problem is the reproduction technique/principles rather than the core recording technology. Even very basic microphones set up in a dummy head, can provide astoundingly good binaural recordings.... the inaccuracies in amplitude/frequency response of the basic mic, are more than made up for by the phase/frequency precision provided by that method of recording and replay.

Related recording methods that work well for spatial information include Blumlein, ORTF, Jecklin Disk.

Once we have that purist recording, we then need to reproduce it without messing up the phase relationships.

Any resonance in the replay system will alter phase... and damping will often exacerbate it.
Some well know cartridge have resonance well within the audio range eg: Grado Gold... 8kHz - the phase and amplitude effects of a resonance can extend an octave (or more) both up and down.

Which is why the "perfect" setup needs to have no resonances within the audio range, or within an octave of the audio range.... and the cartridge loading is critical too, as in many high inductance designs, a controlled resonance is generated to flatten out the frequency/amplitude... - that makes for a nice flat frequency respons, neutral tonality - but I question what it does to phase relationships!

And then we need speakers that don't mess with phase either. - Which is where multi-driver speakers often get into strife, and minimal or single driver designs frequently do a much better job!

Makes one truly wonder at how after all that, so many recordings manage to sound so good...
But they certainly don't sound "live".

Deceiving our hearing would require getting all the above parameters right, and that very very rarely happens. (if at all)

bye for now
David
Fleib ... no, not at all!

Try out a little binaural - with a set of headphones obviously!

It completely and compellingly demonstrates that the issue is NOT inadequate microphones, but rather inadequate miking technique and methods of reproduction.

Tests using the blumlein crossed matched mikes and speakers at 45degrees on either side of the listener - show fantastic ability at reproducing spatial cues.

Phase coherent speakers (eg: ESL's) can be quite stunningly good at this - WITH THE RIGHT RECORDING, AND THE RIGHT SPEAKER SETUP.

Things started going wrong when the mass market placed speakers the width of a turntable appart in the original consoles...
Then later, standard setups were a "Hifi" tower, with speakers on either side (same spacing!)

Audiophiles did better and moved the speakers appart to around 30 degrees either side - usually not much further as it frequently results in a hole in the center effect with most recordings.

Then engineers started trying to provide a more spacious sound with these compromised setups where the speakers were too close together... a flawed setup resulting in artificial enhancements achieving ever better impressionist renditions of the original performance.

The solution was worked out in the early 1930's - Left and Right speakers at 45 degrees, identical center speaker - the result an image that is stable from most positions in the room, and does not require keeping ones head clamped in the sweet spot.

Klipsches Klipschorn setup with the Scala/Belle in the middle did not come from thing air.... there was good science behind it!

Option 1 (old fashioned) Set the center channel as a mono feed (L+R) around 3db lower amplitude than the main channels.
Option 2 (Modern AV technique) Widen the main speaker positions on an AV setup, make sure center speaker is tonally matched and use Dolby PLII to "decode" the phantom center channel. Use "Dimension" parameter to lower or completely eliminate rear channels, Adjust center width parameter to best suit room/speaker setup. For purist setup turn panorama to minimum - if L/R speakers are too close together (eg: the standard 60 degrees appart setup) - a touch of "panorama" will help expand the image.
Downside of all this? - the processor needs to be really really good - otherwise it adds another veil.

What I really want is a good list of Blumlein, ORTF, Jecklin Disk (or related) recordings....
A directory of good material.

Anyone know where to find such a directory?

bye for now

David
Raul with regards to your comments re: the composers and direct/reflected sound - I totally disagree!

Taking a look at auditoria from the periods of the various composers, the auditoria acoustics were specifically designed for a particular type of music.
In other words, the music and the auditoriums went together... ie: the proportion of direct to reflected sound was taken into account and planned for in the composition of the music.

Music from the earlier Mozart/Haydn period was made for halls with a short reverb time (circa 1.2s) - the halls that then and now are known for excellence with this type of music have proportions that result in this type of reverb. This also results in a dry clean clear sound - and much more precise spatial positioning...

Romantic period halls tend towards reverb times of 2s, with reverb time being greatest in the lower frequencies and least in the higher ones, emphasizing the lower frequencies and depressing the highs... a very warm, full, romantic sound.

In a concert hall, reflections take around 15ms longer to arrive at the ear than direct sound... this hugely affects the sound - short sharp dynamics (percussion) are clearly located - but any lengthy section/notes, those that focus on tone, the direct sound will be completely swamped by the reflected sound, and due to the nature of the type of sound involved, localisation is likely to be difficult if not impossible. More than 50% of the sound amplitude reaching the listener is reflected! So the "frequency response" of the reflections completely alters the performance.

Good article on that topic here:http://www.regonaudio.com/HighRomanticism.html

We do not know what the composers did or did not intend, with the exception of the occasional letters/notes left by them.
But we do know what halls they performed in, and which halls were considered "good" as opposed to "bad".
Looking at the type of halls, you can clearly seperate venues designed for baroque music from those intended for romantic - and the composers who were no dumbo's wrote music to be played in a specific environment.

With Wagner (most opera really) - any localisation / imaging is in fact coincidental - the orchestra is (or should be) in a pit - all sound reaching the audience is (or should be) indirect! - and the hall by design boosts the lower frequencies, and by comparison, depresses the highs.
The effect is one of being engulfed by waves of sound.... it is all tone and timbre with no imaging/staging. (except the vocal performers on stage - they are not in the pit...)

It seems to me that the great romantic composers were well aware of the halls and the acoustics that they were playing with, and they used it as a part of their composition.
When the music is then played differently, in a different type of space, or recorded and played back using multimike methods, the result may be pleasant, but it is not the original composition.

The only effective way of capturing a reasonable facsimile of the original composition played in one of the halls it is intended for, is a two mike setup, positioned at the listener location/seat - where it can capture the mix of reflections and direct sound in the correct proportions.

This captured sonic information can then be used to provide a reasonable facsimile of the performance in the home.
Potentially with technologies like ambisonics, and specialised ambisonics microphones, the entire acoustic event can be recorded and recreated - but as long as the capture is done in a known controlled manner at the listener location - then it becomes a matter of intelligently decoding it at the replay end. This, depending on the recording system used could involve something as simple as speaker locations, or something as complex as digital decoding with spectrum variable timing delays, head related Transfer functions etc...

Timeltel - thanks for the link to the sound processing book by the way!

Is there software that can take a sound, and by digitally processing it, position it within a virtual space - yes there is. And it is getting better every day. (some of the stuff that is possible today with relatively economical software is truly astounding!)
But will that be a reproduction of a performance - no it won't be .... instead it is a creation of a performance.
In other words, any recording that does not make the "purist" attempt to record the event at the listener location, (which may involve more than two mikes, depending on the system) is in fact engaging the recording engineer as a secondary composer/conductor.
So really we are listening to Beethoven not by Bernstein or Stokowski - but by John Doe recording engineer.
(slightly unfair, at least in Stokowski's case, he got directly involved in the engineering of his recordings, and made sure they sounded the way he wanted... but I believe this to be the exception rather than the rule)

Does and can a multimiked performance sound good? - Sure!
Is what we hear through our systems on such a recording a reasonable approximation of what the composer had in mind? I doubt it.
Is it any less valid as music - probably not - just as valid - but it is not valid to attempt to claim that it is a reflection/recording of an audio event. That is the one thing it is NOT - it is an independent composition and the composer is the recording engineer.
Much like various artists make mash-ups of previously existing pieces of art thereby creating a new piece of art in the process, so the recording engineer takes the multimiked inputs (which themselves involve a lot of art, and are offcuts / windows onto the original piece of art which is the whole composition), and builds a collage - this collage is in reality a completely new piece of art.

If what the listener is seeking is a reasonable facsimile of the original piece of art, then this method is fundamentally flawed.
But if the listener is looking for a differing art form, based on but not the same as the original piece of art, then it may have a high value.

So I posit the theory that in actual fact, many audiophiles who prefer their system/recordings to the live events, are doing this because in reality they prefer the "collage" artform over the live performance artform.

Multimiked recordings with that type of pinpoint imaging of a full blown romantic period wagnerian orchestra are in no way a reflection of Wagners art.
But as a derivative artform some of them are in fact superb.

Hmm I'm starting to meander, and repeat myself... I might stop writing now.... (probably shouldn't write too much after midnight....)

bye for now

David
We appear to be heading back towards the linguistic impass we encountered before.

Henry, could you characterise your listening experiences with top MM's vs MC's in technical audio terms that can only have a single meaning please.... if that is possible it would avoid this kind of dead end to the discussion that we appear to end up in so frequently.

My personal comment about MC's vs MM's is that most if not all MC's have a rising top end.
The low inductance of the design (even for HOMC's) implies nowhere to hide the resonance, and even for my Karat 23Rs with a theoretical resonance at 70kHz+, there is still a (very slight) rise in the top end.

Any cartridge with a standard 6mm + cantilever length is likely to have a resonance under 30kHz with the rise to that resonance beginning around one octave lower at 15kHz.

So item 1 - MC's have a rising top end
Item 2 - for the most part MC's are more highly damped, as indicated by the need for higher VTF's - this may have an impact on phase. This one is a wild guess, there is the Ortophase article by Ortofon in the early 80's but that seems very marketing oriented. On the other hand their experiments showed a consistent preference within the hearing panel for cartridges with reduced damping - even when that reduced damping resulted in increased colouration.
Implication - less damping is better.... from which one could possibly draw the conclusion that higher compliance is better.
What was not analysed in that article was what actual measurable effect was caused by the increased damping - the article places the blame on phase anomalies/shifts.... but little (no?) other material is published to support this contention.
It does appear that cartridges with lower damping would have better impulse response - possibly resulting in a more live/immediate sound.

Is the increased "detail" heard in many MC's driven by the rising top end? - this would effectively magnify the harmonics of the midrange and up.... my own experiments show that variations in amplitude of less than 0.2db can cause variations in the perception of detail/timbre/tone... and that they are not perceived as an amplitude change!
Typical MC's have a rise of 6db+ at 20kHz....
Typical MM's keep the 20kHz point within 3db - and the better ones within 1db of neutral.

In any case lets not get stuck in the quicksand of differing terminology....

bye for now

David
Hi Jonathan,

thanks for that posting!
Could you please go into more detail on the "voicing" differences?

Are we talking audiophile fashion? Or are we talking differing compromises?
Is one more "true" to the original master? Or can different voicings all be as "true" to the original master?

bye for now
David
Yes I recollect an article in a motoring magasine many years ago - the reviewer walked in on a well known specialist mechanic sitting on the floor of his workshop with a Ferrari motor in a thousand pieces around him.
The journalist asked him what was wrong with it, the mechanic replied: "it has done 10,000k and is therefore completely f*****, and needs a rebuild"

Ouch.
Hi Folks,

working my way through some late 60's Walton articles on measuring pickups, I came across the formula for calculating Effective Tip Mass.
This requires two important values: 1) Primary resonance frequency and 2) Vinyl compliance constant.

The first can be measured, but the 2nd needs to be known to calculate the ETM.

In a stroke of "doh" the other day, I realised I could calculate the vinyl constant from the published ETM figures of various Ortofon cartridges I own (Ortofon being one of the very few that still advertise ETM specs) - and measuring the primary resonance for those cartridges.

Effectively ETM is a mathematical restating of the resonant frequency - Formula is as follows:

ETM =((1/(ResF*2*3.14159)^2)/[1.16 x 10^(-10)])

I previously stated my belief that resonant frequency is critical to top performance, and this relationship appears to confirm it.

It also allows us to understand and compare a range of cartridges and their specifications in a different manner.

The Dynavector Karat 17's have res f at circa 70kHz which calculates to an ETM of circa 0.05g (around the same as the EPC100....)
The "lower end" Karat 23's have res f at circa 60kHz making ETM circa 0.1g.

Other interesting observations based on this:
SAS styli seem to be just under 0.3g

I need to measure the primary resonance of more of my stable of cartridges.... I have a strong feeling that this is a key indicator of performance.

Previously my focus was on higher res f to ensure minimised amplitude and phase impact on the audio frequencies - now I am realising that the res f is also a consequence of tip inertia, and therefore the high res f will also be an indicator of high mechanical dynamic ability. (it was sitting there all the time in front of my face... but it is different to know something and to "realise" it!)

Note: - this is of course completely divorced from whether a cartridge is MM or MC (or anything else!)
If in fact the greatest indicator (or at least one of the greates) of performance is res f / ETM then a large part of the entire MM vs MC discussion is a whopping Red Herring.

bye for now

David
On the topic of headshells ...

My observation and measurement of various cartridges on the JVC S-arm clearly shows up a resonance around 250Hz (varying a bit depending on headshell/cartridge) which appears to be related to the flex between arm tube and headshell.

This is of course to be expected!

The effect manifests in 2 ways: 1) a small but sharp peak in amplitude at the resonant frequency, and 2) a reduction in seperation and tracking ability at that same frequency

On the Revox - this resonance simply does not exist (not surprising as there is no headshell joint to flex!)

I currently do not own a twin pin headshell - which I would like to try out to see whether the firmer connection has an impact on the resonant peak and the tracking/seperation at that same point.

Personally I think that the integrated cartridges have some great advantages.
The ADC and Ortofon integrateds (HiFi versions not DJ) achieved substantially lower mass than can be achieved with a standard headshell (even if using a 6g headshell) - these were high compliance designs, and the very low mass integrated resulted in a substantially lowered effective arm mass - which allowed these cartridges to perform much better in typical arms of that type.

I believe the TOTL Stanton integrateds were also very well regarded although I know little about them.

I do have an AT24/25 but have yet to attempt the comparison... so far I have run this as a 1/2" mount setup.

Ultimately the integrated should IMO be considered as simply another headshell alternative - there is the potential for advantages generated by the design of the two together - but those related to vibration control/damping are so very dependent on other variables (such as the arm it is attached to) - that it is most likely extremely difficult to reliably determine an advantage one way or the other in this area.

Still a high quality integrated eliminates a couple of connection points, optimises effective mass, and often looks pretty cool at the same time.

I have nothing against them, and very much like the Ortofon, and ADC integrateds. (Jury still out on the AT)

bye for now

David
Hi Timeltel,

I am not clear as to whether you are responding to my posting with regards to measuring ETM via primary resonance, or my second recent posting with regards to headshells and vibration...

Assuming it is the former:

The physics behind using the primary resonance to measure ETM are grounded in a couple of theories which may be problematic.
The most obvious of these is the vinyl indentation theory. - so the people that put together this measuring method, assumed vinyl indentation and then proceeded to measure (something) and derived the ETM formula from there.

There is also the competing theory that in fact the primary resonance is generated by cantilever flex, and the there is no vinyl indentation as the groove to needle relative speed is so high that there is insufficient time for the vinyl to indent. (with an interesting corollary that a line contact, makes contact only at a point and not on the entire line...)

Either way, the ETM calculation appears to be valid for all the Ortofon cartridges that I own, and matches the specifications published by Ortofon for those cartridges.

It also appears to work equally well for aluminium, and Boron cantilevers.
Due to the fact that the generation of the resonance involves physical parameters such as material density, mass, and structurally associated parameters such as the speed of sound in the material - specifically in the direction of the length of the cantilever (some materials like wood, have differing speed of sound in differing directions - along or against the grain).

Using the resonance as the measurement value quite simply wraps all these parameters into one measurement...

One could ask whether the ETM specification does indeed reflect actual tip mass - the answer is most likely it does not! - But it is a close relative, and although the nomenclature is flawed, its meaning in terms of impact on cartridge performance is quite clear.

Assuming the latter (my posting with regards to resonance related to flex at headshell joint):

I don't think material of the headshell and arm would have great direct influence on the resonance - as this is an outcome of the headshell mass, interacting via the rigidity (or lack thereof) of the connection point.

But the resonance may be partly damped by differing materials in the arm/headshell/cartridge.

However given the impact on tracking and seperation, I am not sure that differing materials would have a substantive impact - I think to impact on this resonance would require some improvement of the rigidity of the Join - hence my interest in twin pin headshells.

bye for now
David
Hi Dover,

for sure, but some of us want to have our cake and eat it too...
(and that wee little resonance can't be such a big deal can it ?!)
A question for our erudite fraternity....

Is anyone out there still making exotic tube cantilevers?

The Genesis1000 is described by fleib as having a diamond coated boron tube cantilever, The Talisman S had a Saphire tube cantilever, and the top Technics carts had Boron tubes.

All the info I read out there nowadays seems to be talking about rod cantilevers rather than tubes. Tubes have both rigidity and mass advantages... but are obviously a lot harder (more expensive!) to make...

So is anyone out there still making exotic tube cantilevers?

I certainly have not heard of any of the retippers having such cantilevers available either...

bye for now

David