Hi Lewm
I don't think the Cadenza series is MM.
On the Ortofon website it is categorised in the MC section.
It also talks about the Cadenza being a further development of the previous Kontrapunkt range (which is certainly what it looks like)
Although in terms of categorisation, MC/MM is rather meaningless coming from Ortofon, as none of their MM cartridge in fact have a magnet on the stylus!! - They are all VMS / MI cartridges.
So in their "loose" definitions, MM might mean high inductance and MC might mean low inductance... so a design like the Pickering XLZ7500s (pure MM!) - would therefore be categorised as MC !?
But the other pointers involving actual design and construction features link the "Wide Range Damping" system from the TOTL MC Windfield, Anna, Expression etc... all appear consitent with an MC design.
The best of Ortofon MC's have always been very good, although I wonder whether the Boron/Shibata Cadenza Black will be superior to the Ruby/FG Kontrapunkt-b and tapered Al/FG Kontrapunkt-c. (both of these claim the same effective tip mass, implying the same primary cantilever resonance)
Also the range is not linear in the way the 2M series is... the differences between the Cadenza cartridges are more complex:
Cadenza Blue - ruby cantilever/FG70 Cadenza Bronze - Taper Al cantilever / Replicant 100 (FG100?) Cadenza Black - Boron cantilever / Shibata
Also Ortofon appear to have discontinued the practice of providing effective tip mass specifications... which is a shame!
There is a downloadable brochure on the website...
Interestingly the black has the lowest output and the widest frequency range with the tightest 20-20k frequency response specification and the highest tracking ability - all of which would imply a lower effective tip mass / resonant frequency... but possibly due to lightened / different coils rather than simply the cantilever itself.
The Ortofon 2M series say absolutely nothing about their cantilevers anywhere in the documentation - the cantilevers appear to be the same across the entire range, with only the stylus tip (bonded eliptical, nude eliptical, fineline, shibata) varying. What would a 2M sound like fitted with a Boron cantilever I wonder? (or for that matter an OM?)
bye for now
David |
Axel's website: http://www.schallplattennadeln.de/ |
Timeltels response is spot on!
all that I will add is this:
The R values I find most usefull are (roughly)
35k, 47k, 72k, 100k.... if I have more slots I would perhaps add 30k, 40k, 62k.
I prefer to use loading plugs rather than a switch, although my parallel RCA sockets are hard wired into the phono stage. With loading plugs, I can always make up an additional set of plugs if I want to adjust up or down a smidge more.
Also once set up for loading plugs you can make up Capacitance loading plugs in addition to the resistive ones. Achieving the same flexibility with both.
If I was going to have a fixed set of capacitances with a switch... Minimum 50pf (to protect the phono stage circuitry) - then 100, 150, 200, 300, 400.
That would provide (assuming 100pf table and IC capacitance) : 150/200/250/300/400/500, more granularity at the bottom end where you are likely to need it, and I cannot think of a cartridge where more than 500pf is recommended. Although in some of my experiments that was an alternative I considered, but the phase effects of capacitance are sufficient to avoid excessively high C ...
Although Raul's 100k "standard" has an excellent "filling out" effect on the trough that most cantilevers have in the 3kHz to 10kHz zone - it does it at the cost of increase amplitude AND PHASE SHIFT - in the higher frequencies. With many of us being of an age where the frequencies above 15khz are likely to be historical, an frequencies above 10k may be in doubt, this approach may have validity...
But for me it just seems wrong... I also believe that achieving phase linearity is another important goal that helps enormously with correct reproduction of imaging and soundstaging. At least when listening to naturally recorded twin mic / Blumlein methods - artificial studio constructs make phase relatively irrelevant. Linear phase in the high frequencies is unlikely to be achievable with the 100k setup under most circumstances. (although with very low inductance and capacitance there may be exceptions)
This is my own two bits worth of input
If using a complete original stylus/cartridge then the manufacturer recommendations are always my starting point. But as soon as the stylus/cantilever is non original, or a hybrid from a different manufacturer or perhaps from the same manufacturer but intended for a different cartridge and loading configuration, I start by estimating roughly where the loading might be expected to be in terms of capacitance, setting R to 47k and measuring the response - once you know the frequency response - you can start varying from there.
Feeding the data into a modelling spreadsheet can also be used to estimate what a different load might sound like in both frequency and phase terms... but although the model works as a guideline, I have not found it to be sufficiently accurate to be predictive - but it does help by showing in which direction to head! |
Hi Dover,
I requested that Joe Rassmussen (maker / designer of the JLTI phono) load my phono input at 1MOhm, he was more comfortable on his design with 500k - so my custom version of the JLTI has a 500k ohm input load, which I then adjust as desired using loading plugs - on occasion I have experimented with 150k R loads, but these were academic curiosities only...
So I highly recommend having a phono stage with a 1M input load - makes life a lot easier for those interested in custom loading.
Fascinating about the Decca London - if shifting the loading resistor location resulted in differing sonics, do you have any theories as to why?
When close to the cartridge, might the London be unshielded and perhaps prone to microphonics due to EM overlap with moving wiring? (or any other reasons...)
If it happens with the London it should happen with others too...
bye for now David |
Hi Lewm,
I use a range of differing test records, with the output from the phono stage being digitised and then run into a Real Time Analyser software... - the RTA allows me to then dump the data out as comma seperate variable (CSV) for pulling into spreadsheets - very handy for further manipulation.
The best test record I have is a Denon test record with two test tracks, the first is 3Hz to 1kHz and the second is 1kHz to 50kHz - which goes high enough to identify most resonances.
Alternative and more readily available test records: The CBS test records - several of that series have spot frequency test tracks - these are precise in terms of being a specific frequency point, but painful to use as you need to measure each individual point seperately. (using these I can also identify and map THD at each frequency point) Some of the CBS tests also have a frequency sweep - which is easier to use with my RTA software!
Another alternative is to use a Pink noise track, such as the one included on the HFN Test record - WARNING - the HFN Pink noise track is not to be trusted over 16kHz. The thing to watch out for when using a PN track - and a sweep track - is that both methods sum the total outputs, which means the THD and IMD contributions are included as part of the frequency response. You are not measuring just the signal. That is the bad bit. The good bit is that the psycho-acoustic impression of the sound INCLUDES the harmonics - and the PN test therefore frequently better reflects the subjective impression of the sound profile of the setup!
The Pink Noise test is the most readily available of the tests, and also the easiest to use.
I have also used Werner Ogier's suggestion to extend the frequency range of the tests - run the records at 45 rather than 33 - the frequencies all get shifted up by 1/3rd.
The only difficult bit, is that when recording you need to compensate for the RIAA, as the EQ turnovers need to be shifted up 1/3rd as well - I have some freeware software that achieves that too... - Using this method and the HFN Pink noise track, you can get a good measurement up to around 21kHz. - This is perhaps the best relatively easy way to measure and adjust loading. (and if the HFN test record gets worn from testing all your cartridges, you can always buy another, as it is currently being produced!)
bye for now
David |
AT150ANV update
There is a very brief review of the AT150ANV compared to the AT150MLx on Audiokarma...
For those who are not aware, the AT150ANV is an improved version of the AT150MLx, changes appear to be the titanium body along with some sort of anti vibration internal compound, and a stylus cantilever made of ruby/sapphire.
Preliminary report on sound is that it is slightly warmer than the MLx, while maintaining the overall sound, detail etc...
This is what one would expect if the slight top end rise present on the MLx were to be reduced, by raising the cantilever resonance frequency (a consequence of the differing material used) - achieving a cartridge that is another step closer to true neutrality / perfection.
It is not an in depth review or report - I expect there is more to come, but it is the first I have seen online.
bye for now
David |
Heh Lewm, I do not currently have the budget for the AT150ANV!
Just providing people with a lead to a forum where someone has purchased the AT150ANV and is providing some feedback on its sound. |
Hmm just had a look at images of the XL88, it looks nothing like the Empire/Benz/Vdh MC1 family - do you mean to say that the internal generator structure is similar? Or is it that the same designed worked on these? |
Interesting listing you put there Dover: Yoshihisa Mori = Sony XL88 = Madrigal/Carnegie 1 & 2 = Benz ( various ) = Van den Hul MC1/2/Frog
To this family I can add the Empire MC1 I have, which appears identical to the VdH MC1/2/Frog/MC1000
However in this family cantilevers and needle profiles have definitely varied, and according to Vdh the internal details have varied too (number of turns of coils, type of wire, suspension materials)... So although one might say the generator is the same, it appears various styli have been fitted to this generator (using the "lingo" of MM)
bye for now
David |
Here is a thought - a 20% reduction in cantilever length has a far greater impact on effective mass and rigidity than the material used for the cantilever...
The ATML series as an example had shorter cantilevers than the AT1x0 series...
The press fit of needles into cantilevers is NOT limited to aluminium - if you have the right production facilities.
Technics used to cut a slot for the needle in their boron tube cantilevers with a laser - the needle was then apparently inserted with the material hot, and as it cooled the shrinkage of the material would provide the "press fit"
I have a feeling I read somewhere that Dynavector did something similar...
The "standard" cantilever tends to be circa 7mm long... Flex generates harmonics - which tend to be euphonic, so all "romantic" cartridges have "long" cantilevers...
When you look at cartridges particularly renown for neutrality and dynamics you find quite a number of short cantilevers among them (Decca, DV Karat...)
I do find the press fit idea fascinating, and wonder what a very short aluminium cantilever might sound like... what would a Dynavector "Alum" (as opposed to Karat) sound like? with the cantilever length at under 3mm effective mass is negligible regardless of material used... needle could be press fit too... interesting thought!
I do agree that most cartridge makers and retippers appear to be limited by what is available - can they do their own thing an mount needles on cantilevers - sure they can, but that increases the labour cost substantially! Buying it in already mounted makes a heap of sense, and probably explains the very resonable price at which retips are now available to us. Of course within that price bracket we are then limited to what is available in "pre-mounted" form. However it is also clear that some retippers do do full retipping and provide various cantilevers...
I think the search for perfection would require (in my mind at least): A Heavily laminated poles, low output MM body (preferably 4 or more laminations?) A very short cantilever made of a light but rigid material - probably Boron - my reading does not seem to indicate any intrinsic advantage to ruby/sapphire/diamond over Boron. (Boron tube would be even better... but is no longer made)
The lot mounted in a very low mass, vibration avoiding design such as the Ortofon OM bodies, and suspended with a high compliance, low damping, suspension...
Anyone know of such a beast? Maybe I will just have to make one myself....
bye for now
David |
Hi Harold-not-the-barrel,
It has been a while since I did my Shure 1000e experiments... and you need to consider what stylus you are using.
With the N97xSAS in place the frequency range was flattest with high capacitance 500pf with 58k gave exemplary flat f/r to 9k before rising to a peak at around 13/14k of around +3db then dropping rapidly.
At 700pf 47k it stayed flat to 8k, but then rose more gently to +1.5db at 13k Before dropping off. - But I think the phase effects (which I cannot measure) might be a problem with such a high capacitance... I just don't feel comfortable there!
At the other extreme 150pf and 47k exposes the cantilever flex trough dropping gently from 3k to -2db at 6k to 7k before starting to rise to the resonance at 16k (+1.5db) so more of a roller coaster ride of a plot - but the f/r is much more extended - it is warmer (consequenc of the midrange trough) but still gets detail air and space (consequence of the slight upper end rise)
I did some preliminary testing with a VN5xSAS stylus - and its resonance is much more restrained - so you can achieve a more linear / neutral frequency response - but it is waiting for a rainy day to get tested thoroughly.
The ultra500 is a V15VMR on steroids - so for neutrality I would follow Shures standard setup - I do have measurements for the V15VSAS - but that is a different beast to the original VMR/Ultra500
Hope that helps
David |
Immobilising/damping stylus mount
A number of people have posted on their success with stylus holder immobilisation...
These solutions have ranged from superglue, to bluetack and plasticine.
I have used plasticine, and in at least one case, measured a substantial reduction in harmonic distortion.
So yes, remove the stylus protector, and immobilise the stylus holder - two more steps in getting the most from your favourite MM/MI cartridge!
bye for now
David |
Tubed1, The MCZ stylus is still available from Grado ($150 I believe), and it is possible that even the TLZ may still be available.
Of that excellent series the ones I know for sure are still available (and a viable upgrade from current prestige styli!) - are the 8MZ and the MCZ.
It would be worth asking grado if the TLZ is also available - which would make it the "ultimate" Grado prestige upgrade stylus (short of one of our custom jobbies....)
bye for now
David |
Hi Pryso
I am no expert on the Grado's,
There is one such who regularly contributes on Audiokarma (Marcmorin)... he might be able to answer your query about the 8MX...
What I do know about the Grado's is bits and pieces picked up from people's postings - and especially marc's...
bye for now
David |
I've seen it come up a lot on ebay.... sometimes bundled in with other cartridges, rarely on its own. It has such a low stand alone value that people don't bother trying to sell it - they usually bundle it with a TT or other cartridges.
It was standard on almost the entire low to middle end range of JVC tables - so there are a lot of them out there somewhere...
Being laminated core type, it should be on a par with the V15III... |
Hi Folks,
it has been a while since I looked in on this epic thread, and then it took me a week to catch up on the 18months or more that I had missed....
Most of the postings that might have triggered some words from me are now somewhat too vintage!
My own research on vintage MM's pointed me towards the JVC X1 about 4 or 5 years ago - reading various spec sheets, articles, finding out about JVC's work on quad , on phase linearity in cartridges and then the cartridges they issued post that work.
Those cartridges included several now legendary MC's as well as the X1 and the Z1.
At the time I started seeking both the X1 and the Z1 - getting the Z1 body was easy - finding the original beryllium/shibata stylus was not (and it continues to elude me). About 2 years ago or a bit more, I came across what appears to be an original NOS X1-mkII stylus - and snapped it up.
However I still did not have an X1 body!
Now due to Don's help, I hope to shortly have an X1 body, and I will see whether the theoretical potential matches the reality!
On the topic of the tie wire - I too have read Pritchards comments on the suspension tie wire as a negative. I have quite a few XLM series cartridges/styli and am a big fan of the Pritchard approach.... I also prefer the theoretical philosophy of the tie wireless design - but execution seems to consistently trump ideology/philosophy, and I have plenty of tie-wire based cartridges that perform at the same level as those Tie-wireless ADC's.
Nandric - you mention an eliptical stylus you purchased for the X1-II, was this with a beryllium cantilever or a standard aluminium?
The X1 and Z1 both use laminated core poles (like the V15III/IV/V and the AT TOTL efforts, and others) - but no information was ever available (that I could find) as to how many laminations and of what thickness. - To the best of my knowledge the only company that has ever published this type of information is Nagaoka - The MP series are all laminated, but as you go up the range the laminations increase in number and decrease in thickness.
I expect that the X1 used thinner laminations than the Z1 (and more of them) thereby reducing eddy current effects and their resulting high frequency rolloff... on the other hand the difference between them may be as simple as a more highly specified (or hand picked) stylus...
I have not looked at the X1 stylus under the scope in a couple of years - perhaps time to do that again, in preparation for the imminent arrival of its bride (body).
A special thanks to those of you who have kept this thread alive in the absence of Raul....
Although we may have already dug up most of the great MM's (never say never though!) - I think we are far from having explored all the potential great cartridges of the golden age.
Part of the theme of this thread has always been value for money, and the ability to achieve true top level "High Fidelity" performance at price levels that are at least an order of magnitude lower than the current TOTL market, and frequently several orders of magnitude lower!
The gems of yesteryear are still out there to be found, tasted/heard, tested, and raved about (or not...).
Another aspect of this thread has been discussion of optimisations and synergies for various cartridges.
Of particular note is Halcro's observation that the metal bodied AT's match best with wooden headshells and that the plastic bodied AT's match better with well damped metal ones (eg Magnesium). Also discussions of loading, setup, alignment, VTA/SRA etc...
In any case, I will look in more frequently, and look forward to the next 10,000 postings.
bye for now
David |
Acman3 - I just picked up two of them! Get them while they are there!!
Don, no worries I am not in a burning hurry, and will be VERY interested in your feedback.
I have experimented with a bunch of the Shure bodies, at various inductances, and came to the provisional conclusion that it was all in the styli.
BUT- I got hold of both V15III and V15IV bodies... so I now have bodies of the same family in the same inductances (500mH) in both laminated and non laminated form... to get an understanding of how much difference the core structure makes.
My gut feeling is the X1 is likely to be a notch further up the performance chain than the Shure's....
Waiting with bated breath for your review!(yep I am going blue in the face)
Hi Halcro, I typed the above before reading your posting... my measurements always indicated that the SAS would match best at default manufacturer loading with a cartridge around 500mH... and it has worked very well in my Shure 1000E (p-mount member of the family, physically identical to the V15HRP, 500mH) - question is how much better is it once you mount it in a metal body, and use a laminated core? The V15V I have (with SAS) requires quite extreme loading (27k 700pf) to achieve neutrality - leading me to approach it with some caution and to avoid generalising on that basis!
bye for now
David |
The good thing about picking up multiple Z1's (or V15III's or ...) is that you can then hand pick the best matched one...
I find it remarkable home much variation there can be between left and right on some of these vintage TOTL cartridges - V15V, AT150 and a few others...
There clearly is a good reason to have a hand picked premium series...
some examples
Early ADC 250mH bodies 1) 252/264mH 366/368ohm 2) 271/273mH 357/350ohm (EXCELLENT) 3) 228/239mH 365/365ohm 4) 260/256 361/358 (Very Good) 5) 249/261 371/373
or Shure V15-III 1) 499/497 1394/1397 (excellent) 2) 496/506 1349/1392 3) 548/530 1412/1363 and V15IV (same core as III, different mount, hand picked?) 4) 531/529 1398/1413 (very good)
I don't mind a bit of variation in the resistance - it will alter the balance a touch but not a big deal. A variation between the channels on inductance on the other hand means that there will be tonal variation between the channels, mostly in the high end - and that is a no-no.
I have several Z1 bodies, which measure as follows:
1) 375/378 481/480 (excellent) 2) 390/393 490/463 (Good) 3) 344/374 461/70 (BAD) 4) 340/371 468/476 (BAD)
I try to find an example with inductance of the two channels within 1% of each other...
With rarities like the X1 we seldom get the opportunity to select the better body!
Also - looking at period doco about JVC cartridges, there is a X1 and an X2 cartridge, specs seem almost identical, difference is as follows:
X1 1.7g VTF / 2.7mV / 6g X2 1.5g VTF / 3mV / 7.5g
The X1 and X2 (sometimes noted as X1 and X1mk2?) have very very similar specs - difference between them is unclear, and the data I have is in German (which I can muddle through only roughly...) Both have magnesium bodies, same spec needle and cantilever and same frequency response... X2 claims an anti resonant housing (explains higher mass?)
By positioning on the page (highest spec to lowest spec), the X1 would be assumed to be superior to the X2.... (also numbering, JVC numbered their top models 1, then usually worked down the numbers to lower models hence Z1/2/3/4 - same bodies with lower spec on the needle) - but reading the specs the X2 gets anti resonant treatment that the X1 doesn't?
Anyone out there with more info?
bye for now
David
|
World Authority - hmm I may get a swollen head!
I have gone to the bother of doing substantial measurments on 3 different SAS versions (N97xE, VN5MR, VN5xMR), with a collection of different Shure bodies...
My conclusions (in a nutshell) are that the SAS styli best suit bodies with an inductance of around 500mH (which includes the V15III and V15IV)
Lower inductance bodies (such as the V15V and V15Vx) require substantial and dramatic loading changes to get the frequency response close to the neutrality that the original OEM stylus achieved (at manufacturer Spec loading)
The main resonant frequency on the SAS is circa 28kHz - which is not unusually low for boron, but an extended series of measurements focused on frequency / amplitude response and different loadings (I measured at 5 or 6 different C loadings up to 720pf, and ran the test for 4 or 5 different R loadings)
Conclusion was that with the lowest inductance Shure bodies (V15V - 320mH) it needed a low R (26k to 30k) with a high C (600 to 750pf).
I did get some V15III's and IV's to do similar tests, but have not got a round "tuit"....
My modelling and my testing with 500mH more basic Shure bodies (1000e, V15HRP), seems to indicate that at that inductance, the SAS should provide relatively neutral voicing (as per the original Shure's) with close to original Spec loading. But like I said - I have not tested the theory with the V15's yet! |
Tracking Vs Tracing... interesting distinction...
If tracking is poor, there is not much point having superb tracing abilities.
You cannot achieve good tracing, if you are mistracking!
So tracing is only relevant when the stylus is performing WITHIN its tracking capabilities.
In terms of tracing, there is not a lot to choose between a high quality 0.2mil eliptical and an exotic line contact...
The Shibatas, and subsequent Vdh, FG, ML designs, do no better than a 0.2mil eliptical within the audio band. (in theory)
In fact the more basic HE's and Shibatas have a side radius closer to 0.3mil... and the 0.2mil elipticals are superior!
Another aspect that has substantial impact is the level of polish on the needle, the reduction in friction, reduces vinyl roar/noise, as well as improving a range of other audible performance parameters.
The Denon DL103 is a prime example of a relatively "broad" needle (conical/spherical) where the level of polish/finishing on the needle is such that performance becomes competitive with much finer styli which should theoretically have superior tracing abilities.... A top quality 0.5mil conical vs a rough 0.3mil eliptical, the conical will be the better performer. Even though it will not trace frequencies over 12kHz effectively, and will have a lot of distortion at the higher frequencies due to tracing problems, within its tracing abilities, which include 95% of audio, it will perform better.
But a well finished ML/MR on a tracking champion like the Shure V15 series has both bases covered... (and the SAS is also well finished and an excellent tracker).
Having a stylus / cartridge that can only track 60microns, implies accepting that you will never be able to hear undistorted dynamic peaks... cymbals, rimshots, 1812 Canon shots - there are plenty of examples where although the overall level of the recording is well within the 60u, the peaks will be pushing that tracking ability.
For what we think of as a High Fidelity transducer, I think that is just not good enough.
I fact, in my own biased opinion, all those MC emperors, who cannot achieve better than 60u tracking ability... they are definitely wearing no clothes.
The best MC's have much better tracking than that, and we should not accept under par tracking in exchange for other aspects of performance, it implies increased wear to both needle and record from miss-tracking, as well as decreased dynamic abilities and increased distortion.
One of the reasons so many of these fantastic classic MM's sound so good, is that they have great tracking abilities, combined with great tracing abilities - do the fundamentals right and the rest has a chance to fall into place.
Once you have good tracking and tracing, then you can focus on other issues - resonance control, voicing, reducing magnetic losses etc...
A basic AT92e is a wonderful cartridge that gets most of this right - add a decent quality line contact needle to the mix, and you are 90% of the way to the perfomance of a high end megabuck cartridge... all for around US$100.
The incremental steps beyond that, cost ever increasing amounts to achieve (price doubles for each tiny step up... gets expensive real quick!) But in the vintage cartridges, this price/value equation does not apply, and we can purchase cartridges with performance on a par with the megabuck brigade, for much lower prices...
Although many of the bargains are drying up now, (in now small part due to this thread) there are a plethora of relatively unknown classic cartridge bodies that can be fitted with a newly purchased SAS - so for under $200 you can easily get a cartridge that steps into true high fidelity record playing.
bye for now David |
Hi Nandric, canon's are not the only form of extreme dynamics - jazz rimshots also qualify, cymbals can often be remarkably extreme in their peaks too...
The canon shots are the "gross" end of the peak repertoir, but there are a lot of finer more delicate contributors to our musical picture that require quite extreme dynamic abilities.
Note I am not saying that tracing is unnecessary - far from it, but I AM saying that tracking is key...
With regards to anti-skating, those of us that use a linear tracker, do not concern ourselves with such trivial and irrelevant bagatelles...
I am quite certain that most of this august group have seen the charts that Shure published, after studying and measuring the peak tracking requirements of hundreds of records... The information was first published as part of the marketing for the V15II I believe (although it may have been earlier) - but it does demonstrate where the tracking peaks lie, and what sort of envelope of tracking performance a cartridge needs to achieve. The point at the time was that the V15II would achieve it obviously, but so could many of its highly regarded competitors from Stanton/pickering, Ortofon, Grace, ADC, Audio Technica, etc.... (all of our favourite MM's!)
A top tracker will usually also be a high compliance cartridge...
IF your cartridge has a more limited tracking "envelope" then there is a group of records that this cartridge will never be able to properly reproduce. And given that this group of records is also the records that are most likely to be high fidelity high quality recordings, it all seems rather self defeating to me.
If you take a look at the manual for the V15IV (at http://cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1817/us_pro_v15iv_ug.pdf ) On page 4 the trackability chart is displayed.
I am less interested in the plot of the V15IV's peformance than I am in the instances of records that are above that plot - there are at least two instances that have velocities of over what appears to be 80cm/s, with a whole bunch of other recordings ranging in the 40 to 70cm/s.
It would be nice to have some data as to which recording was which data point, but it does not matter, as many more difficult recordings were released AFTER this chart was made (including the Telarc / Kunzel Canons...) - and therefore the number of recordings that push the boundaries has increased substantially since then.
Are you really proposing that it does not matter if a cartridge cannot play all these recordings without mistracking? And by definition, the cartridge would perforce damage the record each time it played it!! (given that mistracking is the single greatest cause of record damage)
bye for now
David |
Frogman - have you tried the low output MM's (eg Pickering XLZ7500)?
I ask this because one of my interesting observations was that there was a noticeable and measurable difference in the midrange and lower high end, between using the same D7500 needle in a LO body and a HO body.
This implies that this difference is down to the magnetic "circuit"
My assumption is that when running LO, the poles (and magnets in the case of MC's) are taking a hugely lower level of magnetic energy - hence there is markedly reduced magnetic distortions (eddy currents, hysteresis, and such).
What I measured was that the high midrange, low high end trough which is present on all the MM's I have measured, is reduced from a 3db drop to a 1db drop (1db is within the error margins of the measuring method, so it may be down to zero - but I don't think so, as MC's seem to show approximately the same 1db drop)
So I know that some of the signal is no longer "lost" in some form of distortion.
The next question, is that given that we are in the real world, the energy is never lost, but merely converted - so where have those 2db of additional signal gone - much of it will I assume re-appear as various forms of distortion (more analysis needed).
I think you might find that such a LOMM has the same sonic "feel" as you describe for MC's.
At 3mH this family of cartridges are relatively high inductance compared to MC's - but a couple of orders of magnitude lower than most MM's.
It is also possible that some of this benefit would also accrue on designs like the AT25/TK9 (88mH) or the EPC100 (85mH) - but being an order of magnitude higher than the "true" LOMM's, I don't think so.
Just a couple of thoughts - and if you have or can get hold of one of the Stantering LO bodies, I would very much like to hear your feedback
bye for now David |
I believe most.of.the Sony MC's prior.to the xl-mc series were satin. The xl-mc's were pure Sony, and were the basis for a number of other non Sony high end efforts too. |
The 981's and 980"s had the same styli, but the 981's came with their individual calibration test results.specific.to that body and needle....
The L bodies are low inductance / output and the H bodies are high...
The shared styli are what makes for an interesting way of differentiating the generator behaviour.... Both types are top performers... But they do sound subtly different. |
My knowledge of Sony/Satin is based mostly on material posted on "The Vintage Knob" http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-VC-8E.html
On here: http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-XL-55.html it is mentioned that the fully owned "Sony SoundTec Corporation " was set up to manufacture/design cartridges in 1976, and shut down in 1985...
XL-MC series is here: http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-XL-MC1.html Where it mentions that there were only 5 Sony rebadges ever...
So there may only be a couple of "Satin" cartridges - the rest are all Sony. |
I think the Sumiko Talismans were another rebadged XL-MC body, mounted in a custom made metal body.... particularly the talisman virtuoso, looks like an XL-MC, bracketed into a solid metal body... (presumably with a custom specified cantilever...)
The less square talismans look more like the XL-MC - but a customised version with a solid body rather than the original Sony "removable stylus" version.
I do find my XL-MC104 very sweet, but clearly limited by its relatively ordinary cantilever (resulting in a noticeable resonance around 6kHz if I remember correctly from measurements a few years back) - I think the same beastie with a ruby or boron cantilever might be quite a magical cartridge... then it would be called an XL-MC3 (that is also LO rather than the 104 which is HO)
What is this secret Japanese website you use? (and how do you work the shipping?)
bye for now
David |
Hi Fleib,
the 6Khz resonance does not make sense from the cantilever - and surprised me, it may well be the coils - but even then...
Yes it is the standard XL-MC "stylus unit" mounted in a p-mount carrier - this version being a HO stylus.
The body does seem very firmly mounted in its carrier - I doubt it is a mounting resonance.
Like I said before - this is a very sweet sounding cartridge - it has a bell like tone that I put down to the boost around 6kHz.
bye for now
David |
Hi Fleib, the plastic bodied Grado's are the ones that are modded, I have not heard of people doing this type of work on the woodies.
All the current woodies have non removable styli, and are difficult to get into.
Cartridgeman is the single best known "modder" his version of the plastic bodied Grado's compete directly with Grado's own woodies... and the latest version received a ruby cantilever with line contact tip..
Apparently you can purchase his stylus.... Which would make an interesting upgrade for one of the better signature bodies!
bye for now
David |
Found this resonance only on the XL-MC104P... although I have not run it in the magnesium technics SH90S headshell, I doubt it is the mounting as I also use the same adapter with my 1000e-SAS - which shows no resonance at 6kHz. Mind you, it could be micro-differences .... and the 104 might be marginally smaller and therefore slightly loose - but I don't think so - it feels quite firm in there... (and I do use the tightening screw on the p-mount)
I do not own a "pure P-mount" arm... the SH90S serves that function on my JVC, and a universal adapter (cannot recall whether it is an Ortofon or AT one ...) is mounted on the Revox. |
Hi Folks,
In my measurements of a range of cartridges recently, I have succeeded in identifying what I believe are the Cantilever resonances. (model the electrical behaviour, deduct the measured behaviour and you have an approximation of the cantilever resonance)
Based on this I am starting to strongly believe that cartridge "tone" is driven primarily by the cantilever - and that detail is in turn driven by needle minor radius, and total effective moving mass. ie: it is all in the stylus. (Cartridge design will affect the efficiency of the conversion of this into an electrical signal, and cartridge damping/potting and other design aspects will affect other forms of Vibration driven Intermodulation)
Now what I wanted to raise here is that in most cases I am seeing a cantilever resonance occurring between 8kHz and 21kHz (8khz being the extent of the influence of the peak - the peaks themselves tend to be between 11kHz and 21kHz)
As examples: ADC SuperXLM - 21kHz, AT440MLa two smaller peaks 11k & 16kHz, N97xE-SAS 15kHz, Ed Saunders VN5MR 11kHz
When one takes these cantilever resonances and adds to them the suggested 100pf/100k loading - the 100pf extends the electrically flat frequency response, but with 100k loading an AT440MLa has a 1.5db peak at 30kHz dropping gently down to flat at around 8khz (electrical response only) - add this to the cantilever resonance and we have measurements that give a 3+db rise (2.5db @11k, 3db @16k over 3.5db @20k)
With cartridges like the ADC's or Ortofons (very similar cantilever resonance profile these two) - they have a sharp peak just outside the audible range (21k) with the effect then coming down in a smooth line... but add to this an electrical resonant peak - and we can easily see +9db @20kHz
Overall the effect that I am seeing from 100pf/100k is improved smoothness through the low to high midrange - followed by a level rise which varies depending on cantilever design (and cartridge inductance)
To achieve something approximating a flat frequency response in many cases requires that a lower R load be used, and in some cases a high capacitance so that the electrical drop off in response is balanced by the mechanical resonant rise in response to achieve something close to a flat frequency response.
In effect we are limited by the stylus designs - and no amount of loading will adjust for a stylus designed for a different loading profile.
Take a look at the catalogue literature for the Technics EPC-100 series - with the hollow boron tube cantilever. Technics showed a graph with resonant peak somewhere above 50Khz (probably 70k or so) - the sales flyer is not exactly precise! The flyer also shows diamond rod resonance as being substantially lower (circa 30k?) (see the technics pickup systems flyer on VinylEngine) And obviously such relatively crude materials as Aluminium have a resonance even lower down (base on same dimensions and design - not shown on flyer but implied)
These cartridges achieve +/- 0.3db 20-15kHz and +/-3db 15-80kHz (!)
So even with cantilever resonances so far out of the way flat F/R is only achievable between 20-15kHz
There has been a conversation with regards to the various signet models fitted with differing styli.... seems to me the discussion is about the styli and not the cartridges.
So far - using the example of the AT440MLa (which many of us own) best results are showing up at R loadings below 47k and above 20k - exact optimal value depends on personal preferences and system capacitance.... Personal preferences in that due to the nature of the response curve, one has to trade off midrange droop and HF rise. - ie one can configure for almost no midrange droop - but you will get some HF rise. And if you accept a bit more midrange droop you can have the HF performance more in line with the rest. - An imperfect world unfortunately.
And all this because I decided to try to work out the optimum loading for a bunch of cartridges....
bye for now
David |
Just wanted to reiterate Fleib's request...
if anyone has access to AES paper #1866, convention 71, this might be helpful.
The paper is the Ortofon AES paper on phase response in cartridges, in which they tested a number of MM/MI cartridges, and then did controlled tests of an MC200 cartridge on which they varied the damping from none to extreme, and both measured the phase response variation as well as did listening tests.
A better understanding of the parameters around phase response in cartridges might help us in better optimising MM cartridges.
By adjusting capacitance and resistance (load) - we can either generate a resonant peak (often used in default manufacturer recommended setups to compensate for high-midrange droop in frequency response) - or configure the parameters for the flattest possible response just short of generating a resonance.
This may allow a much more phase linear configuration to be optimised with some precision. (the electrical parameters being well known and understood, and therefore easily calculable)
In any case I am seeking any additional information / papers that are out there on the topic of phase and cartridges.
thanks & bye for now
David |
Stltrains - some of the classic designs are still being manufactured...
The Audio Technica VM generator is available in the very economical AT90/91/92/300/301/3478 series, the AT95, and the AT120/440/150.
The biggest difficulty is getting good to great styli. The ATN150MLx is an excellent stylus - and at $200 reasonable value. There are Shibata/Line Contact styli available for the other models too at a very reasonable $80. (But the cantilevers are more basic)
Soundsmith continue to make superb MI cartridge based on the old B&O design
Grado (of course)
Shure still has their M series (both p-mount and 1/2" mount) which are very good - but they no longer make top of the line styli for them - Luckily for us Jico make their SAS stylus to fit the Shures. This allows one to combine a M97xE with a Jico SAS for an excellent sounding combination at around $240 Or an M92 if one prefers p-mount...
Ortofon have their excellent 2M range - which has gotten a bit expensive (relatively speaking) in the last few years. But you can still get the older 510/520/530/540 cartridges, still new and also renamed "Vinyl Master" - or the p-mount 320u
The OM series (predecessor to both of the above) is still available in its lower end stylus versions (OM5/10) and various DJ versions (colourful body with DJ stylus) - but the OM30/40 TOTL styli can still be found - so for under $300 you can easily have a working OM30 / OM40... (or OMP30/40 or Concorde30/40)
The Nagaoka MP series of MI cartridges are well regarded and have very good models between $100 and $600.
There are other examples - the MM / MI marketplace has not been abandoned! - and there are still more MM / MI cartridges being sold than MC's - but the MC's continue to "hog the limelight".
A Ford or GM motor car that can drive as well as a Ferrari (in all aspects) - still will not get the press that a Ferrari gets.... Ferrari is a automotive fashion icon - purchased for the same reason many women purchase Louis Vuitton handbags. And the fashion icons of audiophiles are MC's... (Koetsu is perhaps the Ferrari of vinyl...) Which is not to say that Louis Vuitton does not make good handbags, but that is not why they are purchased.
(and some Ferraris are just so beautiful....)
bye for now
David |
Hi Fleib,
the original doco from the XLZ talks about its ability to "handle" long cable runs.
I do need to scan it and send it to the VE library - the copy that's in there now is almost unreadable..
picked these up: Pickering XSV/4000: 900Ω 510mH Stanton CS100: 500Ω 270mH Stanton 880/881: 900Ω 510mH Stanton 980HZS: 800Ω 450mH
The Stanton CS100 looks identical to the XSP/XSV3003... (or at least very very close!)
So the series had/has standard inductance models (510/450m), low inductance models (270mH), and low inductance low output models (1mH).
Lots of scope in there for tuning a product to a market segment!
bye for now
David |
Just had my first listen of the TK9e
This is lovely - smooth, sweet, and so far, most probably the most realistic portrayal of acoustic instruments I have heard out of the JVC TT.
I measured compliance at 31cu - and it is currently sitting in a Lustre mg headshell - which adds up to effective mass way too high - but the arm is damped - so the resonance is under control. (undamped it was at 5.9Hz) - This cartridge would probably like a much lighter headshell....
What type of headshell would people suggest as being optimal for the TK9E / ATN25 ?
thanks & bye for now
David |
Thanks Fleib,
the lateral calc came out at 32 to 35cu where the vertical came out at 14 to 16cu
The former seems too high,and the latter seems too low....
I may just redo the whole thing.
I have a couple more cartridges recorded but I need to do the editting and carving up so I can put them up.
I also finished recording the AT440MLa using digital EQ (ie: record using custom loading & RIAA, + digital EQ based on pink noise analysis) - so I am hoping to put up at least one version of each cartrige in digitally EQ'd version.
My theory is that the cartridges will sound even more alike once EQ'd - using this method, allows me to choose loadings that are less amplitude linear but more phase linear - and then adjust the amplitude using linear phase filtering - still to be seen whether this experiment will be a success - but I think this is the way of the future for vinyl.
bye for now
David |
I have been searching the web for DC resistance values for the AT95...
As measured by Fleib the DC resistance is 408ohm - so the difference between resistance and impedance is less extreme than I expected.
It would be interesting to find out whether the CA's in fact are AT95 bodies with mods.... (not that there is anything negative about that!)
With regards to retipping services (such as SoundSmith) - if the bodies are the same, one can purchase a CA Aurum Classic - Satine wood - for $300 at retail... fitting a ruby cantilever with TOTL needle is $400 - is the result therefore superior to the Maestro?
I am not being flippant, if the bodies are in fact the same ... then this approach could be used to upgrade a basic model.
Also worth asking - what are the differences between the different woods, and the aluminium bodies?
Are these differences "absolute" or "relative" - what I mean by that is, will one body work better with a particular headshell/arm and a different one with a differing headshell/arm? And therefore it is not a question of which is "king" put how to work out which is king for your specific combination!
Also if the AT95 body is confirmed as the same specification as the CA bodies - then it opens up the possibilities of wide ranging mod's and great flexibility....
The possibilities of an AT20ss stylus in an AT95 body... (as per http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.20 )
And if the differences are really generated by the body damping variance (rather than the generator itself) - how much more potential is there in some of our existing favourites?
The AT95 was sold alongside the AT24/25 & TK9/10.... what potential is there is a hot-rodded TK10 as opposed to a Hot Rodded AT95?
I was in touch a while back with someone who had had a SS Ruby cantilever fitted to his V15V - he was not totally satisfied with the result... But there is a wide variety of excellent generators/bodies out there- and once we have a favourite, one that best combines with our arm/headshell/table - would we be better off organising a custom stylus/cantilever for it, rather than experimenting all over again with a new body...?
Possibly the CA range (if shown to be the AT95...) is the ultimate demonstration of what I have been saying in the past: 1) The stylus defines the sound, and especially the cantilever 2) the generator is of lesser importance 3) Vibration control is critica... headshell, arm, modifications to the body for vibration control...
I do not own an AT95 - anyone care to measure a few and post their data?
thanks
bye for now
David |
Hi Fleib,
I agree totally - the more linear the initial phase & frequency response, the less messing is require to correct it, the less additional distortion is introduced along the way. Without a question of a doubt, the best thing is to start with a very linear cartridge/stylus having no LCR resonance or cantilever resonance within the audio range, and preferably pushing these resonances out far enough that they do not impact on the 20-20k range (50kHz? 75kHz?).
So far a few very nice sounding cartridges are all showing cantilever resonance between 19kHz and 23kHz: Empire 1000z AT20ss ADC SXLM Pickering XLZ7500S Jico VN5xMR SAS Shure V15HRP Empire/Benz MC1
BUT all of them show dropp off below 100Hz, a hump between 100 and 400 (peak between 200 & 300), and a slump around 10k (of varying magnitude and width) Correcting the above anomalies does improve the square wave (and frequency response) - but I have not yet done real listening with it...
I would like to get my hands on a Dynavector Karat or a Technics EPC-100 as they have a reputation for extended very flat frequency response.... far more so than any of the above cartridges that I already have.
Raul - I do have the SRT14 test record, but found the Ranger Square Wave test record to be better. (seems to be more cutter distortion on the SRT14) I would love to get my hands on the CBS 112... will keep my eyes open for it.
I have been having footfall problems, which have been frustrating me (I know, a shelf would be better, but is not currently an option!) - I fitted magnetic levitation feet this evening, and the footfall influence dropped dramatically.... should be able to do more listening now. (also new driver arrived for my headphones... to be fitted tomorrow, or the day after...)
bye for now
David |
Timeltel - I too am fascinated by the way in which language alters (or perhaps more correctly - shapes..) thinking patterns. An area of some fascination for me. I wonder how many international diplomats are aware of this....
Jcarr Thank you for all the valuable info.... and as I sit by the knee of the master... I will ask a few more questions!
>That is because the coil former is non-permeable, and therefore, rather inefficient in terms of generating electrical output from physical motion. But in return for that inefficiency, they avoid the distortions that all permeable cores inflict. All MMs and MIs have this distortion. So do most MCs that offer relatively high output voltage in comparison to their impedance. So do Raul's beloved step-up transformers (^o^). But non-permeable core MC cartridges like the DL-S1, FR-7, JVC L-1000, Benz-Micro Ruby et al, don't.
How does this distortion manifest? What type of distortion is it? How is it spread across the frequency spectrum? When I measure a cartridges response, what patterns could I look for that would identify or be associated with permeability? How do I identify a non-permeable core cartridge?
(I continue in my search to understand... and model... cartridge behaviour)
As an aside there AT continue to market their lower end p-mounts with a carbon fibre cantilever... But I am not aware of any mid to top end styli with CF cantilevers...
bye for now
David |
Just saw the postings of the yet to ship Audio Technica AT150ANV (50th aniversary edition) http://www.audio-technica.co.jp/products/cartridge/at150anv.html
Using google translate: It is an AT150MLx with the following...
350mH inductance (low) Para-Toroidal magnetic core (?) Laminated Core... Titanium & Polyester anti-vibration body Sapphire Cantilever MicroLine stylus
Has AT dug into its technology repertoir to produce a CA beater? The New King?
Already advertised on ebay for $770
Specifications are like a list of "perfect MM options"
AT are one of the oldest and most trusted MM designers
This is one to watch & hear...
bye for now
David |
Seems to me that what you are saying is that higher VTF (lower compliance) involves greater friction and therefore greater resistance to motion....
Which makes sense...
The interesting corollary that you bring up, is that a TT designed for higher stylus friction needs to have either hugely greater inertia, or ultra precise platter control so as to overcome the additional drag (one way or the other!)
Given that both methods of "drag" mitigation are expensive to achieve.... the High Compliance / Low VTF approach becomes the best value method of achieving the engineering goal. (high tracking ability... no drag impact)
Which naturally leads us back to the theme of this thread.
It appears that not only are the cartridges/styli better value for money, but the Turntables & Arms may be as well.
With manufacturers relaunching their MM ranges.... Ortofon 2M Black AT150ANV CA Virtuoso/Maestro
perhaps the other giants will come back to the game : Shure & Stanton
A new generation V15 or ML140... 881S...
Seems to me there is room between the M97xE at $80 and the AT150ANV at $770 for a whole range of HE and MR cartridges from Shure, and Stereohedrons from Stanton/Pickering...
bye for now
David |
Hi Henry,
went looking for the link but could not find it.... some assistance?
The speed/drag issue is interesting. The fact that there is such an influence is undoubted, the question remains HOW MUCH of an influence, and where does it sit within the scope of audibility/psycho acoustics? And what are known valid solutions that move the effect on a turntable down below the threshold of perception?
You mentioned that your TT101 achieved a noticeable improvement most likely due to handling this phenomenon more effectively.
But this type of technology was used in many subsequent more economical Victor/JVC DD's - so is it the double quartz lock tech... or something else about the engineering of the table?
Getting back to our MM topic - the higher the VTF the higher the friction and drag will be. So presumably, a TT capable of providing superb speed stability with a high compliance low VTF design, might not do so well with low compliance high VTF cartridge design. Although one would expect that one that does well with high VTF designs will be fine with low VTF ones.
How does one quantify this !?! ie: how does one identify a particular TT's parameters and capabilities. Clearly the W&F specs are far too crude to give any true indication? (or are they?)
On your TT101 where you claimed to notice a definite improvement over the TT80 - were you using a high compliance low VTF cartridge, or one of those evil high vtf MC devices... And have you compared the delta improvement between the two types?
Up to now I have placed the "turntable speed control" aspects in the unknown basket... for future investigation - but this might be an opportune time to open the topic up.
Also with these great classic drives (TT101, SP10, others) reaching the stage where parts are no longer available (electronics/specialised chips), what alternatives do we have that achieve this goal... preferably without selling our firstborn.... Is this where the Technics SL1200's with max mods come in?
Seems to me that it is likely that our favoured high compliance MM's may in fact be even more of a bargain than we realise. If they require less of the TT drive for optimum sound, then we get the best result out of a more economical system... the saving may not be limited to only the cartridge.
The decamegabuck+ tables may be at least partly a solution to a problem that does not exist with our MM's.
(or I may have had too much Grand Marnier with my coffee and chocolate brownies at dinner...)
bye for now
David |
Hi Griffithds,
your TK5ea has an inductance approximately 60mH higher than the AT440MLa (490mH vs 550mH) - although not huge, this means that for the same capacitance and resistance, the high end will be rolled off a little more and a little earlier.
So for starters, running the 440MLa stylus on the TK5ea is controlling the high end a touch more.
But I think the description of piercing ear pain listening to an AT440MLa is perhaps gilding the lilly just a touch (!).
The upturned high end is present - and can be exacerbated if the user is unaware of capacitance issues and uses too high a capacitance....
I posted measurements I made of the AT440MLa at a range of differing capacitances and resistances at: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=416983&page=2 or a really abbreviated version at my website: https://sites.google.com/site/zevaudio/turt/cartridge-comparison-list/audio-technica-at440mla
Keep in mind the scale of the graphs - peak boosts and drops are only 5db. Optimally set up you should be able to achieve +/-1db from 1k to 18k+ with the AT440MLa
But although not obvious as "level" variations, slight rises and dips of as small as 0.2db can be sensed - although they are frequently described as more/less detail, or improved tone of a particular kind (frequency dependent) etc... Changes in level below 3db in magnitude are seldom identified as a level variation.... but we still sense them.
Psycho Acoustics is fascinating!
I have also tested the ATN440MLa on the TK6Ep cartridge body (the p-mount version of the TK5Ea same inductance/impedance)
My observation is that the peaks are less pronounced (around +3db rather than +5db with the AT440 body)
With the TK5Ea/TK6Ep - running it at 150pf and around 30k will keep the frequency response within +/-0.7db - whereas at 47k best you can do is around +/-2db (which is better than you get on the AT440 body)
In a nutshell what we are talking about is high end rise - frequency response - which is not related to the sort of subtle inner detail that can be exposed by removing some of the vibrational smearing.... which can be achieved through potting.
But we agree - the ATN440MLa sounds better on a TK5/6 body!
bye for now
David |
Here is a list I put together for myself of headshells - quite a few of them I own and the data is my measurements, others are measurements posted online that I have recorded for reference:
Brand Model Weight Technics 5.7 Garrard Ugly Silver 5.7 Black Plastic 5.8 ADC LMG-1 6.0 Garrard Ugly Silver 6.1 Audio Technica AT-MG6 6.3 AKG 6.6 Rek-O-Kut LowMass sme 6.7 Ortofon Evolution 6.8 LoD Silver plastic 6.9 Technics (unlabelled) 6.9 Technics (unlabelled) 6.9 ADC thin w round lift 7.0 Silver noname (VF on inside) 7.1 Aurex 7.1 Toshiba 7.1 Pioneer PP304 7.2 Sony Black Plastic 7.2 "Universal Headshell" 7.3 "Universal Headshell" 7.3 Turntablebasics Alum black/silver 7.3 Technics SL1210mk2 7.3 Sony black pressed metal 7.5 Black noname noarm (paint scratched on inside - most scratched) 7.6 Black noname noarm (paint scratched on inside) 7.7 ADC (straight arm) LMG-1 7.7 Toshiba style Unbranded 7.7 Black noname noarm (paint scratched on inside - shinier one) 7.8 Black thick plastic - wiring diagram on inside 7.8 Technics (unlabelled, nolift, black plastic) 8.1 Yamamoto HS3 8.2 Ortofon LH8000 8.5 Rek-O-Kut AdjustWeight 8.5 Technics-Style noname 8.5 Sansui Silver/Black Metal 8.5 Nagaoka HS-180 8.6 Pioneer ?? Plain alum silver rectangular 8.7 KQM Technics style silver 8.9 Denon Universal 8.9 Stanton Technics Style 8.9 Gemini HD01 9.0 Denon PCL-4 9.2 Pioneer HS103 9.2 Black Plastic> (VA on Inside) VA 9.3 Shelter 1011L 9.3 Stanton H4S 9.3 Ortofon SH4 9.4 Tonar 9.4
The Garrard "ugly silver" headshells are truly ugly, but also very light and very rigid. There are a number of ADC headshells that are very good.
I am particularly impressed by the LoD silver plastic headshell - It doesn't feel like cheap thermoplastic, more like delrin, nicely damping very rigid!
Quite a few of the original Technics ones I have are very low mass (6.9g)
A few of the ones on the list are the pressed aluminium with the swiss cheese drilled look - those I don't like and try to avoid - they are light, but they are also "ringy". They have often sounded good, but I just don't trust something that resonates like that.
In terms of high quality with good looks and good sound the Audio Technia AT-MG6 (6.3g) is probably the top ranker... but like many AT's you have only 3 screw holes in the underside and need just the right size screws for it, and the holes need to be in the right places for the alignment...
If purchasing new, I would consider the original Technics SL1200mkII headshells, but might also give the Ortofon Evolution a try - 6.8g solidly built (designed for DJ's) - quite a "funky" look - I have yet to see one in the flesh.
hope that helps
bye for now
David |
Shure ML120/140 Ultra300/400 Dual version body !?
I just came across a very interesting add on ebay...
For a Dual TKS380e cartridge
I had not heard of this cartridge before, but on doing a little research it appears to be a Dual mount version of the very very well regarded (and very short lived) Shure ML series.
For those of you running a Dual with the custom cartridge mounting system, or those having the dual 1/2" adapter for the custom mounting system, this could be a bargain gem!
This one seems to come with a basic eliptical mounted - but ML120 ML140 and Ultra version styli are still available for these....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SHURE-CARTRIDGE-VINTAGE-PHONO-STYLUS-TKS-380K-NEW-needle-DUAL-/300692763269?_trksid=e17001.m503&_trkparms=algo%3DRIC.CFNP%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUA%26otn%3D6%26pmod%3D330714405734%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D7706155767443029350
bye for now
David |
3D/Stereo
Frogman, I do not disagree with your comments about subtle harmonics - but I think the phenomena that you are talking about is to do primarily with the overall tone/timbre - and can be hugely different between differing concert halls. In fact it is one of the reasons certain halls suit certain types of (periods of!) music better than others.
But these tones are mostly ambient information that comes as much from reflected sound (sometimes almost exclusively from reflected sound) as from direct sound - and direct sound is exclusively what builds the solid auditory image - precise location is from direct sound only.
So we need to differentiate between tonal "real"ness and spatially localised "real"ness - which are two different aspects.
Good article on tone and concert halls: http://www.regonaudio.com/Records%20and%20Reality.html
And with regards to stereo imaging & recording techniques: http://www.regonaudio.com/MICROPHONE%20THEORY%20word.htm http://www.regonaudio.com/Directional%20Hearing%20How%20To%20Listen%20to%20Stereo.htm
bye for now
David |
Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music.
The orchestral crescendo's, the massed chorus + Orchestra in the final movement of Beethovens Ninth Symphony, and a plethora of other examples... all these peaks, whether delicate items in a softer composition (cymbals in a Jazz band), or loud complex items such as a full orchestral crescendo, these are the heart and soul of the music - the accents, the moments of most intense emotional content.
These moments are absolutely NOT the time to fail and fall into sibilance, or other forms of distortion! (although I do know some people who cannot stand too much emotional tension, and tend to always do something to "break" the moment.... )
Although as a general rule high compliance designs track better, this is not fixed - consider the MC Anna, with compliance at 9cu and VTF of 2.6g, it is definitely a low compliance design - but tracking is specced at 80um - so it is a good tracker as well.
But this is a megabuck cartridge, so one does expect high performance.... what is less expected is that the Ortofon OM40 (at less than 1/10th the price) has even better tracking ability (90um).
And Ortofon MC designs in the same price bracket as the OM40 are tracking at a mere 65um (MC1 Turbo).
Still if even the prosaic MC1 can achieve 65um - why would one accept a cartridge that barely makes 50um?
Also worthy of note is that tracking ability is also frequency dependent - Ortofon measures at 315Hz, if you look at the chart I mentioned earlier for the Shure V15IV, you will note that the distribution of tracking peak requirements is highest in the high frequencies (where effective tracking is ALSO dependent on tracing ability)
Typically cartridge tracking abilities peak at between 1k and 4k and start dropping thereafter... being able to achieve a certain value at 315Hz is no guarantee of being able to do the same at 15kHz. (although typically 315Hz and 15kHz are both similarly down on peak capabilities...)
Still I think one of the key items in the sheer ease of the sound provided by the MM/MI designs we discuss in this thread is their high trackability - on average noticeably better than even multi-megabuck MC's.
It is very difficult to engineer a high tracking ability MC, (or at least a reliable one...) - whereas it can relatively easily be done with an MM/MI design.
bye for now David
(continuing to wave the flag for MM/MI) |
Canon's Canon's why the focus on canons?
I certainly was not focusing on them!
As I pointed out, there are plenty of excellent recordings that push the boundaries of tracking and tracing ability - outside of the famous canons!
Also I am not a big proponent of spec engineering and spec marketing...
The fact that a cartridge requires an extreme anti-skating setup to successfully negotiate a particular test record, does not mean that the cartridge should be set up in this manner for normal use!
Rather (to my way of thinking) it is an indication of the cartridges capabilities under extreme circumstances.
If one cartridge is capable of passing the highest level torture test of tracking on the HiFi News test record, where another one is incapable of the same regardless of setup/configuration, then you have a very clear indication that one has superior tracking abilities.
It is likely to perform better on any of the records that have more demanding tracking needs.
There are a bunch of parameters that come into play with both tracking and tracing... the arm geometric tracking error, will directly affect tracking ability. This also means that a test track which coincidentally resides around the peak tracking error of your specific arm setup geometry, will show cartridges performing worse than on your friends identical turntable/arm configured with a slightly different alignment schema.
If you wanted to accurately measure tracking ability, the test track would need to be located close to the geometric null of the arms alignment... (or perhaps more practically, the arm/cartridge would need to be realigned to place the null on the test track location).
The other interesting thing about the "null" is that at that point one frequently requires far less anti-skating (and depending on cartridge / arm often none at all)
Under normal circumstances where the TT involved is not a linear tracker, and the arm has not been adjusted so the null and the test track coincide, the test can only be used as a relative data point to compare with other cartridges tested on that same setup.
Do I have cartridges that rank as poor trackers, but that sound really nice... Yes I do. But I also approach these cartridges with greater caution... in the knowledge of their inherent limitations.
bye for now
David |