08-20-14: NandricI have never said that and do not subscribe to that theory.
This also imply that I disagree with Dovers 'theory' that MC carts are prefered by persons who like 'exaggerated' (+ 3 dB at 20 Khz ?)
Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
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.
Showing 45 responses by dover
Jcarr Thank you for the informative post. I am interested in your view on cantilever flex on eccentric records. My experience with a tangential air bearing tone, the Eminent Technology ET2, is that even with the horizontal mass reduced significantly by using a totally decoupled counterweight ( in the horizontal plane ) I can observe the cantilever flexing back and forth as the arm moves in and out. I have observed the same phenomena with conventional pivoted arms including my Naim Aro, Dynavector 501 and FR64. An argument has been put forward that because the frequency of oscillation navigating the eccentric record is so low, that the cantilever and arm move as one and the cantilever does not flex. Kuzma uses this for his rationale on employing a very high mass arm. Bruce Thigpen has stated this would defy physics. My own physical observations with low compliance MC's ( Koetsu Black, Denon 103 Garrott among others suggests lateral flex occurs when playing eccentric records. What is your view or experience on this. |
08-21-14: Nandric Dear Dover, See Dover 07-13-13: ''the essence = does one prefer the 'rising high end' of the MC carts or...'' Nandric, that was a proposition, not a personal view, for the purpose of discussion. If you read the post in full I pointed out that not all MC's have rising top end. Indeed my Koetsu Black ( current model ) has no rising top end and my Dynavector Nova 13D is only 1 db up at 20kh. I suspect that the ensuing step up device or phono stage probably generates more variation in ones perception of top end than the actual cartridge, hence the wide variation in opinions on said same cartridge in many instances. Same with tonearm and its set up, the impact on the cartridges "sound" or sonic signature is significant in my view. |
Fleib, Thanks for posting the link to the article on phase response in MC's/MM's. It does go a long way to explaining differences of opinion, listing preferences and system attributes will play a significant role. Here is an interesting video that highlights similar issues around phase preservation, and its impact on sound reproduction - although the video is 20 minutes it is well worth a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgK87tmRVeY |
Fleib - It is interesting to note that the high frequency 2db rise at 20k with the Grace F9 is greater than any of my moving coil cartridges ( Dynavector Karat Nova 13D, Koetsu Black ). Certainly the F9E I owned with original stylus was a little thin and anaemic sounding, a bit wiry in the top end. Lewm, The Dynavector 505 manual I have simply says the sub arm should be parallel, the word geometry is not used. It may simply be that they believe all Dynavector cartridges should be parallel to record for optimum VTA. One possibility is that the damping imparted by the dynamic tracking force spring may be suboptimal when the arm is not level. The Dynavector 501 manual I have does not make any comment, nor does the 507. |
Lewm, a few years ago local distributor found a cache of NOS Denon 103D's in their warehouse. I went through all of them examining their supplied measured response graphs. None of them were the same, and I was able to pick one that had the most accurate response and best channel separation. The variance was quite noticeable between samples. |
05-25-15: PrysoPryso - this is a gross generalisation and I think most participants in this thread are looking beyond that paradigm. In my case a have no aversion to MM's or MI's. I ran Shure V15V's in an Eminent Technology ET2 tonearm for a number of years and currently own a Glanz MFG61 and Victor X1 ( original with beryllium cantilever and shibata diamond ). I also own Dynavector Nova 13D, Koetsu Black, Denon 103D, Fidelity Research FR1mk3 & Ikeda Kiwame MC's. Both the Dynavector and Koetsu Black Goldline have a flat measured response and a lower published resonant peak than the Victor X1. In my system the Dynavector Nova 13D simply digs deeper than the Victor & Glanz - for example on massed choral work I hear clearly separated individual voices with variations in vocal tone and nuance on each voice, whereas the X1 simply does not have that level of resolution. The Koetsu Black is roughly on about a par with the X1, though a little smoother across the spectrum. In my view there are more serious challenges in amplifying moving coils - ringing in MC Transformers, Granularity in FET/Transistor MC gain stages and noise in all-tube MC gain stages. Similarly tonearms have a significant impact on the performance of individual cartridges. I have run most of my cartridges through multiple arms including Eminent Technology ET2, Naim Aro, FR64S & Dynavector 501 (all currently owned ) and SMEV, Alphason HR100, Zeta and a few others previously owned. I hear bigger differences between arms than between cartridges in the same arm in some cases. For MM's there are clearly big differences in perceived performance due to the impact of loading ( both capacitance & resistance) that many modern phono stages simply do not provide. In my view one can only get a semblance of understanding from a description on this thread of how a cartridge could sound if one can see arm/phono and the rest of the system, otherwise it is meaningless. Cartridge performance is very much a sum of the parts generated outcome. For the record I currently have running two turntables - Final Audio VTT1/Naim Aro/Dynavector Nova 13D ( this is my reference deck ) Platine Verdier (modded)/FR64S/Victor X1 & Koetsu Black Goldline in rotation. I also listen regularly to an Soundsmith Paua Moving Iron and Ortofon Rohmann MC, both are musically compelling and enjoyable to listen to. |
I have both the Glanz MFG61 and the Victor X1 with the original Beryllium cantilever/Shibata stylus. From my testing thus far the Glanz 61 is smoother in the top end and more refined than the Victor X1. I have not heard the Glanz Halcro refers to above and cannot comment on those. The X1 on my Platine Verdier/FR64S has a similar balance to my Koetsu Black, but is etched through the mids and a little brittle in the top end. The Koetsu sounds more relaxed and is more refined. The MFG61 mounted on a FR64S on my Final Audio VTT1 is much smoother and more refined than the X1, sounds like you are sitting a few rows further back in the hall. |
Lewm - short answer is I don't know because the Glanz MFG61 came in the original packaging minus the specs sheet. I ran the Glanz MFG61 in the FR64S with a light headshell and 170g counterweight to lower the effective mass as much as possible. Cantilever looked reasonably stable and centred in this set up. I also run the X1 with the 170g counterweight on the FR64S which was an improvement over the standard counterweight. If the Glanz MFG61 sounds better in a low mass arm than what I experienced then it would be an extraordinary cartridge. |
T_bone, unfortunately the Sony XL88 was a loaner and has long gone. My current stable are Ikeda Kiwame, Koetsu Black, Dynavector Nova 13D Ebony, Denon 103D & Shure V15V vmr/vxmr. Daily runner is the Koetsu Black. Agree with you on the Ikeda - it's the most compelling MC I have owned, but it is brutal on tonearms and demanding of phono stages ( output 0.15 ). I do agree with Raul and others in that at lower prices the MM's are in many instances a better choice, they can be more "relaxed" in lesser arms and phonostages, I suspect due in part to better tracking and less energy imparted into the arm. I despair at experienced audiophiles who recommend $2000 MC's for turntables/arms costing $1500 - a sure fire recipe for frustration and upgraditus.. |
Dover Where did the resonances come from. Of course you could argue that the resonances landed on the arm via Virgin Airways, or some flooby dust dropping from the heavens was upsetting the arm, but I think the balance of probability is that some came from nether the cartridge and dare I say it the tip of that nasty LOMC they used. Halcro And it is not 'spurious' energy which excites this resonance nor is it the cartridge itself. It is indeed the very energy of the stylus doing its job of tracking the groove and extracting the information. Conclusion - :| |
Halcro - On a more less contentious note I'll put forward an analogy to the MC/MM debate. Years ago I rewired my ET2 with Van den hul monocrstal silver wire. Everyone said it had more detail. I wasn't entirely comfortable, I perceived a pinched effect in the upper midrange/lower treble and rewired the arm with oxygen free copper litz. Everyone thought it had less information. On extended listening with the upper mid lower treble emphasis removed I could hear into the music to a far greater degree with the oxygen free copper. Does either wire produce more detail ? I doubt it. Does one wire produce more harmonics than the other ? Who knows. Can we make substantive conclusions on the quality or attributes of each wire from this experience - no, unless we send the record/arm/cartridge & phono stage off to Mr Brisson ( MIT ) and ask him to replicate the environment & analyse the signal before and after it enters the cable. |
Raul - Some time ago you asked me about retipping the Dynavector Nova 13D. Last time about 10 or 12 years ago Dynavector rebuilt mine and said last time, no more generators available. Now fortunately as a special favour they have rebuilt the Nova 13D into a Nova 17D for me, new guts everything. The B&K frequency response printout is ruler flat from 20hz to 20khz apart from a wobble of +-1db between 27 & 30hz. Well its pretty good, it decimates the Koetsu Black Goldline in the top end, producing details non existant from the Koetsu. It is more coherent from top to bottom and musical timing of individual notes much better. There simply appear to be twice as any notes. I'm very happy. Koetsu was running on a Naim Aro which produced much more air and detail than when mounted on a Dynavector 501. The Nova 13, now 17, I am running in on the Dynavector 501 arm. I removed the Nova 13/17 from the integral headshell and mounted it on the Ikeda headshell, it sounded much better this way. The Ikeda headshell has the advantage of the strongest joint with the Dynavector arm than any other headshell I've tried and as the headshell clamps onto a short pipe, you can adjust asimuth and overhang easily. I can achieve Baerwald rather than Stevenson which I prefer. The other tweak I have done and can recommend is to remove the copper plate from inside the heavy counterweight at the rear of the 501 and replace with teflon tape. This means the only metal connection the counterweight has with the arm is a single point through the grub screw. |
Orsonic headshell : The Orsonic AV101b I have is most definitely original, not Chinese. The Orsonic AV-101b that I have is crap. It has a single bayonet that is too small and allows the headshell to rotate as you tighten it onto the arm, it doesn't butt up solidly to my Dynavector 501, that is, the joint with the arm is not rigid. Thirdly, if you try to adjust azimuth, when you tighten the clamp, the headshell rotates again. The azimuth screw behaves more like a worm gear than a clamp. If anyone wants to pay big money for a genuine original piece of crap let me know and I'll list it. This is the full post I posted on the other thread - http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1347802090&openflup&87&4#87 |
Raul, Lewm - the in line solderable fuses in the military link above that Raul provided look like an interesting option, particularly in tube power amps that use fuses to protect output tubes. Elimination of additional connections and push fit joints with contact resistance should be helpful. Surely the elimination of fuseholders and soldering the fuse in line would be better than most fuses out there.http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/public/en/bussmann/electronics/products/cooper_bussmann_overcurrentovervoltagecircuitprotection/fuses_and_accessories/axial_leaded_fuses/mcrw_series_fast-actingwire-in-airsubminiaturefuses.html I see the Quantum redo the end cap material as well. This seems more scientific than most audiophile solutions. I have a friend who manufactures audio cable and in trialling connectors the removal of all plating yields significant improvements along with machining and polishing at all connections points. In other words go and get those lovely WBT's, Furutech's or whatever and remove the gold/silver/rhodium plating and polish the metals and you will get a significant improvement, assuming the base material is copper. The use of cold welding technique rather than soldering so that you are not destroying the cable at this junction, and the use of ceramic based composite powders for resosonance control all yield significant improvements, although now he has developed a solid air matrix for dampening instead of composite powders to maintain an air dielectric. These techniques should be equally applicable to power cable and fuses. I wonder with the Quantum when they will come out with a fuseholder of the same material. |
Lewm, I was keen to get your view independently, but since you asked. I removed the Dynavector Nova 13 from the 501 and mounted it in the FR64S. The FR has opened up and fleshed out the midrange, bags more info through the mids than the Dynavector 501 and I suspect the Aro as well. Reminds me a bit of the Sumiko The Arm/Koetsu Onyx Gold vdh combo I heard years ago – bags of rich and ripe harmonic structure. Soundstage is big deep and wide, similar to the Naim Aro but with more precision. The soundstage from the Dynavector arm is more compact, has very good lateral precision of instruments within the soundstage, but soundstage depth is truncated ( in my system ). I read through some of the historical posts and noted J Carrs comments about arm tube resonance in the FR and the need for dampening, but I'm not hearing any resonance, more a lack of resonance. At first I thought it a bit slow, but its getting better all the time. I had a good Jazz session last night and the pace and timing were fair humping. Halcro was right about the fit and finish, I cant imagine many moderns arms looking this good and having such beautiful bearing feel after 20+ years. Ikeda also has an aversion to jewelled bearings - maybe he has something there. I wouldn't be inclined to change the grease in the B60, I normally favour rigidity through the arm/cartridge/tt/platter loop and VTA adjusters usually are quite sloppy. The FR B60 is quite impressive to me that you can do VTA but the mechanism seems quite rigid, if a little stiff. |
FR64S arm resonance - I am not getting any resonances that impair the playback from the arm thus far. I am getting more information, better harmonic structure and the decay of piano notes, bells, etc goes on forever, seemingly free from interruption of unwanted resonances right through the mid to top end, which is where I would expect the worst resonances to appear. Minute changes in VTA azimuth etc are magnified greatly with this arm which suggests the resolution is very high given a decent TT, cartridge and system. I'm using the Ikeda headshell. Note here my other current arms to hand are the Naim Aro, Dynavector 501 & ET2 and have previously owned SME V, Zeta, Odyssey, Sumiko, Hadcock, Helius Omega & Well Tempered to name a few. Maybe it's working exceptionally because my turntable is specifically designed to sink energy to ground. Final Audio also sold their own version of the Fidelity Research FR7f that was more than twice the price of the FR - 230000yen vs 100000yen for the FR7f. It is most likely that the FR64 was one of the arms used in the development of my Final Audio TT. The FR66 doesn't fit so thats out of this equation. The designer of the Final rejected the Dynavector 505 as unable to transfer energy, but with the introduction of the 501 with the stiffer front bearings and the conventional spindle and collet clamp, he changed his mind and purchased a 501 for use in the Final Audio test system of the day. Raul - re the tonearm arm wrap - yes it was called the "Sumiko Analogue Survival Kit" which included a very thin fiber tt mat & a tonearm wrap to dampen the tonearm. All it did was warm up and smooth out the colourations from substandard or poorly matched arms and cartridges. |
Lewm - I'm not sure myself sometimes, but I'm glad you enjoy them. One part of my ancestry is "it must be correct" the other is more pragmatic "as long as we get there". I have heard the Grace sound quite good with a Garrott P77 but I dont think it's in the league of your other arms or some other unipivots of the same era. Grossly overvalued in my view. Best wishes for the festive season. PS The oxymoron is one of your own invention - 02-03-12: Lewm One of my curiosities about this arm is based on ownership of a Reed tonearm and auditioning of a Talea tonearm. The two have a certain something in common, which you might call a coloration but which I call a kind of euphonic hyper-clarity. |
Lewm - you should probably start with another thread on plinth shape. If you are embarking on a new plinth you should really start with a comprehensive project definition listing your requirements. What are you trying to achieve, what are the deliverables. For example the plinth requirement for a vintage idler, which has more shake rattle and roll than Elvis' hips, in my mind would be vastly different than for say a Direct Drive turntable, most of which the motors are mounted in a resonant pudding bowl. The resonances generated by each drive system would be quite different. Do you want a dead plinth ? Do you want a plinth that deals with the vibration & resonance of your particular TT motor drive ? These could yield radically different results depending on your goals. What arm and cartridge are you going to use ? What are their resonant characteristics and grounding requirements ? Does the intended tonearm use dampening or does it require energy to to dealt with by the plinth ? What are you going to place your TT on ? Wall shelf ? Stand ? What type of stand ? What materials ? Even if we assume Richards solution is nigh on perfect, the resultant structure will still have fundamental resonances and at some point at least one will be increased in amplitude relative to the initial impact. But what would your fundamental resonant peak requirement be ? Assuming it is in the musical bandwidth - then where ? What is going to do the least damage to the music ? Most of the plinths built are tone controls, a cacophany of complementary colorations that 'sounds better because I spent so many months & $ building it' it IS better. Did you strip off the wood from the slate to check what had been traded off for the gains you heard ? As I said above start by writing down a list of your requirements, then let's debate that, before we start on materials & shape. You might like to engage your local university or technical college, where with Fourier Analysis software quite commonly available you might find a student interested in taking up your question and doing some modelling for you. Ideally they may have measuring gear that can determine the resonances inherent in the TT drive system to start with. |
There is no such thing as a conical stylus, a conical stylus would gouge your record out. There is a spherical tipped stylus. Now there is an interesting summary or explanation of Reto Andreoli's theory on why spherical tipped stylus are more appropriate than fine tip profiles here : http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9mqival9n98ha639bu21sse1j3&topic=705.msg6149#msg6149 I strongly recommend you have a read and think. It is very interesting and quite logical to follow. "That the stereo groove undoubtedly could be traced with less distortion with a narrower stylus than with a spherical stylus is true. But only if the suspension of the cantilever is the same as that of the cutter stylus. And this is never the case! And here begins the tragedy of the industry, which has been grinding away on the spherical stylus since the first stereo records came about, hoping to improve the reproduction. The actual problem, namely the geometrical design of the cantilever suspension, was wholly ignored - except by Decca, EMI Varilux, Neumann and Ikeda. That this thoughtlessness, or the ignorance of the complexity of the matter has led to design errors, even has increased playback error, is a fact." It is suggested that if you are going to use a finer tip than a spherical, then the cartridge compliance should match the cutterhead to minimise pinch distortion. Due to the unknown compliance of the cutterhead, as it will vary with each recording then one could surmise that fine tip profiles should only be used with low compliance cartridges to ensure the cantilever has less compliance than the cutterhead. ( Timeltel this is your cue to add some intellectual rigour here ) The article acknowledges that Decca, Ikeda, Neumann & Varilux have recognised this in their cantilever design. Both the Decca and Ikeda cantileverless cartridges are the quickest cartridges I have heard by some margin. Interesting to note that some record companies compensated for the stylus distortions of the day. Now I know why when I packed an elderly gentleman's record collection into my wagon a few years ago he said with a glint in his eye "dont worry, I've kept a few of my favourite 78's". |
Raul - if you double the input value on the MM RIAA then you will double the impedance seen by the cartridge. In the case of the AU340 the impedance seen by the cartridge is 3ohm tap 100k/(33x33) = 92ohms ( 33 is the transformer gain for this tap ) 3ohm tap 47k/(33x33) = 43ohms 40ohm tap 100k/(10x10) = 1000ohms 40ohm tap 47k/(10x10) = 470ohms Personally I think the outcome is unpredictable because the alternate load the transformer sees could increase OR decrease ringing or resonances generated by the transformer itself, depending on it's characteristics. Similarly with the load seen by the cartridge, IME it is unpredictable. Jonathan Carr has stressed in other posts that modern MC's are unaffected in of themselves by loading changes. His view is that what you hear when loading down MC's is the change in the performance of the following phono stage when dampening high frequency or ultrasonic resonances. Since reading that I have been playing around with various vintage transformers and ignoring loading. What I have found triallng a variety of MC's ranging in internal impedance from 3ohm to 40ohms with different transformers seems to confirm Jonathan Carrs comments. I have found the "sound characteristics" of each transformer are consistant despite the cartridges having a range of internal impedances. I have found that I get the best results when the gain structure is optimised with the following phono stage and power amp regardless of load. This may be due to using tube phono stages and preamps which may have an optimum volume position. |
Raul/Nandric/Henry Dynavector Karat Nova 13/17 My advice would be to only buy one that is in good working condition, because they cannot be rebuilt. As far as retipping goes, the diamond cantilever has a very fragile yoke into which the stylus is glued. You would need to discuss with Axel the possibility dissolving the glue, as I would imagine that trying to remove the stylus without fracturing the yoke would be difficult. On a Karat Nova 17, you might possibly be able to use a donor diamond cantilever & tip off a standard Karat 17D2. My first Nova 13 went 15 years before I got it rebuilt. I have no idea whether the diamond was worn, it still sounded good, and no problems with the suspension. I simply decided to get it rebuilt to keep it in top condition. Unfortunately I dropped it ( Naim Aro, no arm lift ) and broke the yoke at the end of the cantilever. Dynavector rebuilt it a second time for me. The other one is still original, has been used off and on, and sounds fine. Hope this helps. PS Raul - yes the serial nos are on the metal plate, so you have 2 original 13's. If one has a higher output then it has probably been rebuilt with a Nova 17 motor. |
Timeltel - You should be able to convince someone to pay an extraordinary sum of money for the HA-1000. The value proposition would be - "For the princely sum of $1000 someone will learn never to invest in old solid state gear. The future savings from not repeating this foolhardiness will save $1000's - providing a very handsome return on the initial investment." Failing that, for a small donation I could write a glowing review of the HA1000 and post it on the forum, prior to you listing it on ebay. Of course if you were Ivor T you would argue it is the best head amp in the world, you just haven't found the right cartridge yet. |
the difference between RBCD via the Oppo and a top quality LP via a great cartridge, tonearm, and turntable, is not in bandwidth, distortion, noise floor. Obviously, digital kills vinyl on all of those measurable criteria.That statement is not correct 1. Digital is 20hz - 20khz, analogue has a wider bandwidth than this. 2. Distortion - well thats debatable. One could argue since all digital is a calculated approximation based on sampling that none of it is correct. This comes back to what is your definition of distortion. 3. Noise floor. There is an argument that you can hear into the noise floor with analogue, whereas digital just chops off below the noise floor. If this argument is accepted then analogue can have a wider dynamic range. What I find most perplexing about digital is that I have heard an Ipad blow off many 10-12k digital front ends. How can this be ? What message does this send about spending big money on digital. |
Raul - as 2 of my friends run only digital, one of which is state of the art, I have used one of the systems to help develop my own analogue system further. We have a matched set of records & digital recordings for cross referencing. It has been very useful even though the analogue is better, and I dont listen to digital at home much. I can only listen to simple recordings on digital, anything like full orchestra in my view is where digital collapses. |
The Highphonics have very very low output (0.12). They are very arm sensitive and phono sensitive, so I suspect it suits Dgob's solid state phono. Ex Denon engineers, has some semblance to the Denon DL1000. They need a very high gain, best I've heard was with a custom built phono using Burr-Brown op amps ( research samples, not available to manufacturers or public, very low noise ) and a non standard RIAA curve - corrected for usual problem of cutter head amplifiers not providing the correct cutover points. Quick and dynamic, provided preamp has the gain, in my experience but a little thin. Dgob, fyi the Dynavector 501 with its high horizontal mass pulled more solidity and bottom end out of the Highphonic, despite the low tracking weight and low mass of the cartridge. I get the same effect with the Shure V15vmr & vxmd on that arm. I also have the Glanz MF61 to hand and would expect the Highphonic to dig a little deeper and sound more "unconstrained", a lot more open through the midrange in particular, from my experience. |
07-13-14: Fleib This may well be the essence of the thread - does one prefer the "rising high end" of a moving coil, or does one prefer the rolled off high frequency and phase problems of the moving magnet. As I understand it moving magnets have an electrical resonance within the audio band which results in a rapid rolloff of high frequencies and also phase non linearities within the audio band. Moving coils have an electrical resonance above the audio band. The rising high frequencies in a MC can be damped, but this will be at the cost of phase non linearities - so you take your choice, nothings perfect. Some folk may be more sensitive to phase non linearities and others rising or falling frequency response, so their choice of cartridge probably reflects that. This may well be determined by either or both of ones listening preferences and system, or even long term listening biases. With regard to your generalisation of rising top end MC's I note that in your post dated : 07-05-14: Fleib You have omitted the graph for the following - Koetsu Black,which apart from a 1db dip at 10k has no rising high end Allaerts MC1B MkII which has a high frequency falloff My Dynavector Nova 13D is up 1 db at 20k and my Koetsu Black is flat at 20k. To all intents and purposes the top end is no more prominent than either of my Shure V15vmr & vxmr or Glanz MFG61. |
Lewm - There is no great controversy here, just different opinions. Headshell leads include both wire and connectors so any differences are not just due to wire material, but also the gauge, winding, length & connectors. I hear significant repeatable differences in testing. As regards vintage components they all fit a pecking order in some way. For example the quality of transformers is more due to design and winding technique ( technique, tension and lay etc ) than "age". Did you know some winders used to beat the copper wire with a mallet before winding in the old days, doubt anyone does that now. Valves are another example - does anyone today hand grind the grids and match the internal wires to minimise distortion like they used to in the old days, metallurgy and the chemical compositions are much changed today in tube manufacturing. Some paper and oil caps may be better than average quality polys in some applications - remember these have difference electrical properties due to construction. Obviously there may be tradeoffs with old components. Don’t be too assumptive on old components - I use some vintage 50’s Altec transformers on one of my cartridges - and was surprised to find that the interleaved windings in these 50’s trannies have teflon layers. I have 2 Marantz 7 tube preamps, one original and one completely rebuilt with modern components. The latter is a considerable improvement. Having said that the original is quite capable of seeing off my old Klyne System 7 phono, supposedly one of the best solid state phonos around. As an aside, both Saul Marantz and Sid Smith used modified Marantz 7’s in their own systems - for me it is not heresy to mod these vintage components. |
Raul, What evidence do you have that the JVC X1's are any different from the Victor X1's. Are the specifications different ? Given the age of these cartridges they most likely are not up to spec anyway and sample to sample variation could easily account for any differences you may have imagined. For what its worth I have an original Victor X1 with the original Beryllium cantilever and Shibata tip. There is no spec difference between the JVC X1 and Victor X1 (first version, not the mkII ) . The Jico Shibata replacement sounds nothing like the original Beryllium/Shibata. The original stylus produces a quicker faster vastly more transparent sound than the Jico replacement. The Jico replacement is thicker through the midrange and rolled off top and bottom compared to the original Victor stylus. |
HalcroHalcro Back in April on the DD thread I mentioned that the Sony XL88D was one of many cartridges used in a comparison of my Final Audio VTT1 (mine, the one I own) and the Denon DP100M (borrowed for a few months). I'm talking about TT's actually on hand, not some third party reviewer. You said at the time halcro OPDo you have the XL88D ( diamond cantilever and stylus cut from one piece ) that I was referring to, or the substantially cheaper XL88 ? |
Halcro Thanks for the update - the XL88 you have has a composite cantilever comprised of beryllium, aluminium & carbon finer - same as was used in the Madrigal Carnegie that I used to sell. Its a good solution. I suspect part of the advantage on the XL88D due to the stylus and cantilever being cut from one piece - there is no joint between stylus and cantilever. The XL88D was far more resolving than the other top cartridges of the day. For that particular reference system ultimately my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D was selected as the cartridge of choice, again Diamond cantilever, although the Nova 13D stylus is glued. I have had and sold cartridges with Sapphire, Ruby, Diamond, Boron and various composite cantilevers - to me the material choice is an intrinsic part of the overall cartridge design.The resonances from the stylus & cantilever are part of the design process when designing and building the generator motor, coil layout & body etc of the whole cartridge. For example on the Shure V15vmr & vxmr that I own the Beryllium cantilever was very much critical in achieving the response and performance the Shure designers wanted. The Glanz MFG61 that I own has a boron cantilever - its the best MM I have heard in my system thus far. |
Halcro I have similar experiences. We used to sell the Sumiko Talisman range, same cartridge different cantilevers - Standard - Magnesium/Aluminium alloy cantilever/Elliptical Styli Talisman B - Boron tube / Line Contact - nude mounted Talisman S - Sapphire tube / Line contact - laser mounted in ascending cost/price. The Boron/Sapphire a step up in resolution, but smaller difference between the Boron/Sapphire - the Sapphire slightly lighter, more ethereal in presentation. We did get a few retipped with Microscanner styli by Garrotts which unleashed a little more. According to the blurb ( I have a couple here ) Sapphire is harder than Boron and specs out with a slightly more extended hf response. I've never placed the MFG61 in the Glanz line up so I can't compare it to the other Glanz'. In my system the MFG61 is very neutral with good transparency, the Victor X1 with original Beryllium cantilever and shibata stylus sounds quite coloured by comparison. Also with the MFG61 I dont lose that sense of speed compared to my favourite MC's. The only caution I would give you is the cantilever is a low rider - possibly the suspension is not durable and they are virtually impossible to find. |
@halcro All their P77 cartridges had the raised lettering DYNAMIC COIL cast with the plastic body.Not so. The Garrotts first P77 was the Cambridge based version with Weinz Parabolic. This was produced when Brian & John first started their re-tipping business with the Weinz diamond. Then they introduced the 2nd version of the Garrott P77, the "Dynamic Coil" version with their own design mods. The 2 versions of the P77 produced by the original Garrott Bros are radically different in sound - the Dynamic Coil version having a much more expansive and dynamic midrange than the first. comparing the sound we hear with our two samples, is mute.I assume you mean "moot" or was this a Freudian slip ! |
@halcro I suspect @chakster 's P77 is the original. It is not that rare - I have seen many samples that look identical to Chakster's P77 in Europe, US & here in New Zealand. It could also be the early P66 with the early P77 stylus. Now in terms of stylus the early P77 used the Weinz sourced Parabolic. These were superb and underwent a time consuming triple polishing process specifically for the Garrotts. Weinz died in 1980 and at some stage the Garrott's ran out of original Weinz Styli. They managed to get the Weinz shape copied in Japan - probably by Namiki. Here is the official description from the 2nd version "Dynamic Coil" P77 - "GARROTT GRAIN-ORIENTED MICROTRACER PARABOLIC STYLUS". I know that in the mid 80's when I was a dealer they were offering both the "Weinz Parabolic" and the new "Microscanner" ( also known as "Microridge" ) from Namiki contemporaneously for retips. The Microscanner had the ridge around the bottom, the Parabolic did not, so their description MICROTRACER PARABOLIC in the official blurb for the 2nd version of the P77 is misleading, but probably means that it was the Namiki sourced parabolic ( Not a microscanner profile ).. Garrott's had strong views on matching tip profiles and cantilever materials to specific cartridges. For example Brian built me a custom Denon 103 with Boron cantilever and Weinz Parabolic tip - refused to put a Microscanner on this cartridge. They also tweaked cartridges whilst retipping - for example Koetsu's "worst built cartridge in the world" were often tweaked internally. The motor assemblies in stone bodied Koetsu's in the 80's for example were held in by paper shims, which were usually eliminated by Garrotts but they did not advertise these tweaks/mods. |
@halcro And in @chakster s 2nd photo above the stylus assembly is from the P66 ( black body ). It is not a Microtracer as described on the packaging. https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qBQAAOSw~SdbaWSA/s-l1600.jpg Probably someone upgraded a P66 to a P77 and stuffed the P66 stylus into the P77 packaging. |
@chakster I have never heard the current P77i, only the first 2 iterations from the original Garrott Bros. Halcro I think has both old and new. @nandric I'm not sure I know enough for a full history, but I could consider adding Reto into the story. Perhaps you could send me your Magic Diamond cartridge so that I can spend a couple of years contemplating that prospect. Indeed both the Garrott Bros and Reto were and are true artisans, both with wide ranging engineering skills beyond cartridge design. |
@j2d2 @lewm Don’t think the Einsteins Choice suits MM cartridges, too much gain and low impedance input. ( Highest input impedance is 470ohms or 940ohms in balanced mode. ) The only possibilities I can see for that phono would be the Soundsmith & Grado low output MI cartridges. The Soundsmith low output MI’s generally pan out at around 470 ohms for best sound. |
So I guess I didn't spell it out clearly enough for some - T H E "E I N S T E I N T U R N T A B L E S C H O I C E" IS A MOVING COIL ONLY PHONO STAGE. THE ONLY POSSIBLE CARTRIDGES THAT IT COULD RUN OTHER THAN LOW TO MEDIUM OUTPUT MOVING COIL PHONO CARTRIDGES WOULD HAVE TO BE LOW OUTPUT. THE INPUT LOADING AVAILABLE ON THE EINSTEIN TURNTABLES CHOICE HAS A MAXIMUM OF 900 OHMS. THE ONLY NON MOVING COIL THAT I AM AWARE OF THAT WILL SUIT THIS PHONO STAGE IS THE SOUNDSMITH PAUA - LOW OUTPUT AND RECOMMENDED LOAD 500-1000 OHMS. I HAVE PERSONALLY HEARD THE SOUNDSMITH PAUA AND IT IS VERY GOOD. THE GRADO STATEMENT AND TOP WING LOW OUTPUT MM/MI CARTRIDGES BOTH REQUIRE 47K LOADING AND WOULD NOT BE OPTIMUM WITH THIS PHONO STAGE. |
@frogman I continue to read some threads to gain knowledge, and enjoy others experiences, but seldom contribute now. The simplest way to navigate Rauls insults is skip his posts. Haven't read any of his posts for a couple of years now, I simply ignore them. For me the Ahee moments passed back in the mid 80's, I listen to music these days... |
That is a very low overload margin by any standards. 40/60 sees an overload margin of only 67%. Some of the components in my 1960 Maranta 7 tube preamplifier are running with a 800% overload margin. Such low overload margins as used in your preamp will lead to higher noise floor.
|
No I pointed out exactly what you posted
For active and passive parts that is a very poor overload margin- running anything at 60% capacity - far behind most commercial products. Perhaps you should check your statement with the designer of your preamp and get him to explain to you the ramifications of what you are saying.
|