Dear Pryso: When I started this MM/MI thread my simple target was only to say: " there is another analog alternative named MM/MI cartridges. " and that's all. Never imagine ( not even in dreams. ) that the thread stay " live " more than two-three weeks or maybe a month and we all know what happened.
This was with an alternative where almost no one cares. Pryso do you imagine what could be happen in a LOMC/SUT alternative thread where so many persons are using for years that alternative till today?.
Days have only 24 hours and in a thread like that the target is to share all our experiences and chime on it and in the other people experiences, maybe I'm not only prepared to start a thread like that ( because of time ) but even to post down there.
Time to time I posted here about but I have a lot of information on LOMC/SUT that I can share or discuss with all of you and I wish I could but I can't. I want to learn more on LOMC and SUT but I have no more time to do it.
Right now I have mounted four LOMC cartridges that I don't hear yet because the Precept and now the AT anniversary and next the Astatic MF-2500.
The LOMC cartridge alternative is almost as exciting as the MM/MI discovery and I say " almost " because the MM/MI was a " discovery " when for me the LOMC alternative is something normal in my audio life and not a discovery.
In the other side, my experiences and opinion on the LOMC and SUT are or could be controversial and maybe we could have ( because of that. ) very " hot " discussions and that fact took from me a lot of energy I don't " have ".
Anyway, thank's to think on me for that. I will have present in my mind and who knows maybe " tomorrow " instead to post here I can start that thread ( but: I love this MM/MI thread. ).
If I was posting on LOMC/SUT subject here is only for some of us could start to enjoy that alternative that is very good one too and something different to experience.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear In_shore: +++++ " how is it with such a shining example of a mm cartridge as that of the top Precept line escape the attention of importers, dealers and certain old school members of the audio press? " +++++
as many other great MM/MI cartridges the Precept even today is a " mystery ".
In those " golden years " reviewers were " concentrated " with " normal " cartridge brands as: Stanton, Technics, ADC, Empire, Pickering, AT, B&O and the like. Even the AT Signet line was almost unknowed and with almost no single cartridge review.
You can take for example the AKG P100LE and there is almost no information or any review of this gem.
In some ways I'm a " vintage " audiophile with a good knowledge level in MM/MI cartridges acquired in those old times, this is why knew what to look for when I started this thread. I owned several MM/MI cartridges that I bought again when started this new adventure.
Now, it is more easy that an audiophile has cartridge information than reviewers/dealers.
The AT owner and President here in México is a close firned of mine and thanks to him I owned every single top of the line AT/Signet cartridges, SUTs, accesories, cables, etc, etc even the Telarc recordings that in some time were distributed world wide by AT. I owned cartridges that never were marketed in America as other AT products.
Well, he never mentioned about Precept line and in all AT japanese catalogs I have there is no single reference to Precept.
Why a so especial product line as the Precept left in the darkness all these years? is something out of my mind.
At least this thread already helped to bring out many cartridges from that " darkness ". I thing we all are or have the privilege to listen/experience today the best of all those times that even with the today audio advancements are truly competitive.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: ++++ " I suspect that putting ruby cantilevers for example in a cartridge that hasn't been designed for it is courting disaster ... " +++++
in theory with top cartridges the voicing designer and the design it self fulfil what are the designer targets, he choosed the cartriudge build materials according with those targets to achieve.
So, if we change any single part of that cartridge ( cantilever, stylus shape and the like. ) we are changing those targets and what we are hearing through those cartridge changes is different.
So in theory I agree with you but not in that " courting disaster " because what is involved in a cartridge building is not an exact science ( well it is in theory but not when we listen it. ), those resonances coming from everywhere put away the cartridge design to that exact science as mathematics is.
All our each one experiences tell us that that theory does not works in real life because we already have success through those cantilever/stylus changes. Could be that those changes fulfil better each one priorities. Many Agoner's here not only make changes trhough re-tippers source but even swap thye whole cantilever/stylus part with great results.
I think in audio it is not said it the last word in almost no single subject, we have to test to try to go a head to discover not only " changes " but how good is our hobby.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: +++++ " I think you should think your bold statements over... " +++++
first than all I'm not an expert on cartridge design and only through my first hand experiences, what I read and my common sense is where those statements came.
Let me to tell this and if JC or other cartridge designer can tell I'm wrong then that comes and post about:
in theory ( my theory ) there is no single white paper out there is no single mathematic model and no single cartridge designer that has cartridge design/build information real information tested information that can tell us that if I use a hollow boron cantilever ( example ) 7mm. long with an with 0.01mm thikness using a 0.2x0.7 mm ellipthical stylus with samarium cobalt magnet , with a suspension designed for a 16cu compliance using rubber inside and yokless at 0.23 output level, tungsten cartridge body, 8.4grs on cartridge weight and with 1.8grs at VTF, etc, etc,. Could that mathematic model tell me how that cartridge will performs through the frequency range and I mean not how it will mesures but how will sounds: tone color, dynamics level, inner detail, soundstage, etc, etc?
and what if instead of tungsten cartridge body I change for ceramic one? and what if instead of samarium cobalt I use neodynium? and what if the cantilever changes to aluminum with the same stylus shape?
how will performs that cartridge with each those design changes?
whom can came here and tell us hey: in this case the cartridge will sounds in this manner and in that other case in this way, etc, etc. All these with out testing the cartridge.
Nandric, IMHO that mathematic model is in hands of no one it does not matters the cartridge designer.
Nandric, that not only happen with cartridges but with almost any single audio item design: there is no mathematic models than predict the audio item performance with 90%-100% of precision and not only that but that permit make changes through the mathematic model and then gives the new perfromance prediction.
I think that you don't know the world you are living at audio level stages.
With all my respect IMHO almost all audio designers are " amateurs " with a huge of experience but nothing more. Some are enginners or mathematic mens or whatever but not audio scientifics audio professional scientifics.
Only my opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Timeltel: There is the Jico SAS too stylus replacement.
Btw, where do you read about the 700?, the 1000 that Dgob name it is a different cartridge series: PS not PC and in the magazine I have looks different.
I forgot, my PC-550 is the MK2 version that in theory has a refined stylus.
+++++ " & bass transients are nicely displayed " +++++
only nicely?, IMHO maybe the best out there with the grip, tightness, cero overhang, precision, weight, power, velocity, tone color that other cartridges could envy. At least is what the 550MK2 shows in my system against other cartridges with the same test tracks.
Anyway, a humble great performer.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: +++++ " when I heard the Pioneer PC330 I could tell it had a lot of promise, but the low freq. had a lot of slop..... The highs and mids were excellent as I remember" +++++
about the cartrdige bass management is nothing I can hear in my sample even from the first 1/2 hour to play it. The PC550MK2 bass management is nothing but first first rate and second to none, in this regards I can tell that even a little " better " than the Precept 440LC/ANV cartridges,
What precluded that I put the Pioneer at the top is some high frequency lost of SPL on tiny tiny 3-4 layer frequencies over 9khz-10khz, I'm " fighting to find out what is happen down there: maybe the titatium cantilever build material?, I can't say for now.
In the other side I don't buy any more that: " in those 3 cartridge models the cartridge motor is the same and the top one only differ because the stylus shape ".
The Precept, Acutex and other cartridges I tested in the last two months told me that. I bought a secong Acutex 315 and the 320 stylus shape performs different in both cartridge bodies and the 315 the same. In the Precept the 220 cartridge body shows different performance with the same 440LC stylus and I have other examples.
Could be that in one carrtridge series that is true but IMHO that's not the rule but the exception one. IMHO no one of us can be sure of that " old " statement that I followed too. From today and in the future I will follow my way of thinking I had years ago that's: each cartridge at its own, no rules that has the same cartridge motor because is in the same series and specs are almost the same but we don't know if the builder " touched " the top of the line to tame/refine the quality performance level.
What you and Timeltel heard on the PC330 about its bass performance tell me that that could be because are different motors with the same stylus. " Slop and nicely " bass IMHO is not but the other way around with the original PC550MK2.
Many of us ( including me ) want to think some cartridge models are sharing the same top of the line cartridge motor because maybe we think that with the lower cartridge motor model we can achieve the top cartridge quality performance.
Btw, I', testing along all these cartridges the tiny Lux LMC-1: fenomenal!, more on it latter on.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: Now I understand that " cleaned it up ", thank's.
Btw, returning to my opinion that the top of the line of cartridges designs don't share the same motor as their down size brothers maybe this is why the 550ML stylus replacement experiences I had were with a quality performancce level lower the 440LC when is the 550ML the top of the line and in theory its performance level has to be higher.
Perhaps in the Precept 550ML cartridge body we can realy knows all the glory of this Precept top of the line gem.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I'm out of my place right now but is really light and in the base that's in touch with the LP I glued a round sheet of 2-3mm of our propietary material used in our tonerm design and headshells too.
My mat is made it from that same material.
I'm using the light blended material clamp to tame the natural resonances that exist in the LP during playback, as I said is very light weight and it is not to starigthen concave errors in the LP, only to change frequency resonances.
It works for me. In the 'pást I used several different clamps till I decided that with out clamp sound was better, then I found out in my closet this wooden clamp gift form an Agon friend and I tested and does not dislike me and when I pu that round sheet at the base things goes better for sure.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: +++++ " being censored was that he referenced another competing website ( V E Database). " ++++++
is hard to believe that because VE is a different forum site than Agon, IMHO both are not competitive and more diffrent than alike. The only similar characteristic is the discussion forums but VE is more than that as Agon too.
Btw, if all of you can agree we all can start a new forum in the net. The ideal audio forum where we can have everything we dream and that we have not in any forum in the net. Think about and if some of you are ineterested about could email me.
People/persons/audiophiles are the ones that " make " the audio forums and these audio people like us are the ones that help to the forum grows up.
The audio forums could disappear when we audiophiles disappear.
There are several high regarded audiophiles that now almost don't post in Agon any more because what is happening here as Timeltel and many others already pointed out.
Now, we really need to " suffer " this kind of severe scrutiny?, if not could be that we have to think seriously ( as Timeltel ) to stay here on Agon.
I'm not against a moderator policy what I'm against is first that seems to me Agon have not enough moderators to make things faster and second: those moderators are human been that uses his own criterion to handle Agon policies, maybe with out control of Agon so we are at random with the each one moderator criterion. I wonder if those Agon moderators are " perfect " persons that never fault or never commit an error/mistake with each one of us posts.
In other forums when a post is out of policies just deleted that post and that's it. Here we have examples where the whole thread is deleted.
I think all we human been deserve respect as human been.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " I didn't look at the specs, but isn't the ANV generator the same as a 150MLX? Select coils for a perfect match, put it in a titanium body and give it a sapphire/ML - like magic it's "manipulated.... " +++++
we can think is similar motor/generator, both cartridges came with the same 150 designation but does not sound the same. Then exist the ML150-OCC that sounds different too. We can speculate many things about and especially with AT/Signet cartridges but in reality all are and will be just speculations. The best is enjoy what we have. Nandric some times the " second best " coul performs a little better than the top of the line: remember the MF-200?
Other than the titanium cartridge body and cantilever I'm convinced that exist a " fine tunning manipulation " with top of the line cartridges that does not happen with its down step brothers. You already posted what could be that " manipulation " for the better.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jmowray: ++++ " While I have not listened to the Precept,... " +++++
I think that sooner or latter you will have the opportunity to hear the 440LC and no one better than you to make your own judgements through firat hand experiences.
+++++ " It's hard to imagine any MC cartridge being much better than any of the top Signet/AT carts being discussed. " +++++
" being much better ", well I can tell you that according my latest experiences with MM/MI and LOMC alternatives there exist some LOMC cartridges that performs better than top MM/MIs as the ones you own.
Listen this: IMHO today is the best time to start the LOMC experience the LOMC alternative because the price of LOMC cartridges that are out of production 3-4 years ago dropped in sensible way and in the other side vintage LOMC cartridges has low prices too.
I bought cartridges in the 4K-6K range prices ( even in production ) in perfect condition ( low playing hours. ) with 80%! of discount. So, for me this is the time.
Some of these LOMC cartridges I bought are: Linn Akiva, Transfiguration Phoenic, VdH Colibri wood, Wilson Benesh Carbon one and many others.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: Good things in the life always are surrounded by other unexpected additional " good things ". I can't explain in other words what happened to me when I bough my JVC TT-71 TT.
I bought it because came with the JVC tonearm I was looking for some time with out find it at " nice price ". I did not buy the TT because I need it ( not at all, I own so many TTs now. ) but because the tonearm. As a fact I can say that the tonearm came to me by free, I paid for the TT.
Well, these JVC TT/tonearm came with its JVC headshell and mounted with a broken cantilever cartridge. I don't revised the cartridge because I seen not only with the broken cantilever but looked so " poor " that I did not take in count.
Years ago Siniy123 ( an appreciated Agoner. ) brought to the thread for the first time JVC cartridges, he is very knowledge on the JVC and in MM/MI vintage cartridges, an in particular the X1 and Z1 that if I remember were top of the line models ( the first and the " second best " as Nandric say. )
I wanted to own any or both cartridges but was not lucky enough to find out.
Two weeks ago when my Linn Akiva arrived I was looking through my cartridges one of them that I can use as a " mule " to take out the mule male cartridge pin connectors that I need to change the female dedicated conectors that came with the Akiva and that I can't use it in that way, I need the normal male connectors. So, I took that " poor " looking JVC broken cantilever and when I was ready to destroy it suddenly I read in its top plate: X1, so I go to VE and what a great surprise was the JVC top of the top cartridge an a unique JVC design ( not AT design. ) that for me was a gift.
Next step was to find out the original shibata stylus replacement and I was lucky to find out the only one ( over the net. ) NOS out there through the Netherlands source ( thank's Nandric. ) and I'm just waiting for it to test this JVC lost-link.
Here is the cartridge information:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml
last week I saw the X1 for the first time on ebay in NOS status but the seller was a little " crazy " because he was starting the bid at 695.00 dollars, he stated that the X1 was and is the " holy grail " of the MM cartridges. I think that not even he belives that. We will see.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: ++++ " I just listened again to my Goldring 800 and asked myself: why should anybody NEED a 'better' cart? " ++++
I can't agree more with you that with that statement and I can add: many of us own several cartridges that as you said are " remarkable " and I can say that with more than one of those cartridges we can ask our self: why we need a " better " one?!!!!!
but ( always exist that " but ". ) we are " alive " and " curious " and these human been characteristics make that we can't be sticky with that one " cartridge ". Our hobby other that gives us a high pleasure to our spirit can and gives us different kind of " fun ": like discovery " new " experiences and IMHO there is no reasons to avoid it, life is to short and we have to enjoy fullest. That's why you now own the AT 150ANV, good move.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: Normally I never give-up especially when I have on hand a cartridge with a top quality performance that for whatever reason was not performing so well in a short frequency range that's showing on the whole frequency range.
If you remember that was the case with my Pioneer PC-550E ( btw, I stated/posted that I own the MK2 version: this was wrong, I own the " MK1". Btw, the MK2 is different and I don't think is better but different. This MK2 version came with higher output level, higher VTF and higher cartridge weight. ), well even that through my listening tests I really like it an especially on that " perfect " bass management frequency range I was missin " something " in the low/mid high frequencies that bother me because I took in count that " cartridge fault " against the Precept or the AT 150ANV as other top LOMC cartridges.
I did not read with care the cartridge specs were Pioneer states that the stylus angle is 15° instead 20°+ as other cartridges.
I know during a cartridge VTA/SRA set up ( before listen to it. ) more or less which VTA/SRA is nearest to the " perfect " one position and that's the way I made the cartridge set up on that regards and when I can't achieve for what I know must be there on the sound fine tunning the VTA/SRA I decide to try harder and this is what I did.
I have to work and worked carefully because I did not want it to loose the high quality performance level already attained through the other part of the whole frequency range. Finally after several tiny changes on VTA/SRA ( on positive angle. ) I hear what the cartridge was missing with out any single lost but even with better overall definition. Cartridge tonal balance and tonal colorations now put me nearest to the music and not only because neutrality and accuracy playback cartridge characteristics but now the cartridge sound involve you ( all our senses and body. ) as the live music involve us in a very unique manner.
Now, I can say for sure that this Pioneer PC550E belongs as the Precept and others to that NCG niche sharing a place at the top.
Yes, I'm really happy with this precious " gem ". I hope you can find out in original status.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: I still own the Signets and it's not that I don't like it but against the 20SS or TK10MLMK2 there is not much to be appreciated on the down step models.
Halcro loved those performers because fulfil his needs/priorities. Your priorities as mine have differences in between as with the Halcro ones.
As I like to say: we all likes different kind and distortions level, that's all.
In the other side and due to our ecah one experiences and where we are in the audio learning curve some of us are aware of some kind of distortions that other persons did not or don't bother them, all these makes a difference and put the " color " in our each one opinion.
That's why ( I assume. ) Halcro experiences on the 150ANV are not something not saying great but " new " in any way. That's fine that's what he experienced according what he can be aware on cartridge performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: I can't say in your system but even if we never heard the TK7 and TK10 only by design you can tell that the TK7 has higher overall distortions.
One advantage of the LOMC against the MM/MIs is that the cantilever/stylus comes fixed ( not removable ) and IMHO this sole factor is a difference ( everything the same ) for the better and the TK10 is almost " there " in that regards.
IMHO whole system bass mangement maybe is more misunderstood that understood against live music at near field listening.
That tighter sound you differentiate between the TK10 and the 7 means almost all. The sound that produce any musical instrument are " resonances " undistorted resonances that are imposible to have/duplicate in a home system.
Many times we heard in our system those resonances that we could think are " non-distorted resonances " but because we like it we like to think in that way.
All of us are aware of what we like it, all of us are aware on how perform our system, all of us think that we know almost all we have to know about system performance but through my experiences in my audio life and experiences in this forum and others I could say that only a few of us are aware of non-obvious distortions. I always say that the differences in between audio systems are the kind and level of each system distortions.
Acman3. in the same manner that years ago no one talk in this forum about: DD TT, tonearm removable headshell designs, tonearm/cartridge geometry alignments tools, active high gain phono stages, MM/MI alternative, etc, etc you can read that almost no one through Agon and other forums talk about does not-obvious distortions and this could means that many of us are unaware of it.
Like in the past, everytime I brought to Agon something " new " ( there is nothing new in what I said or say. ) people laugh till they learned. As you know I'm still learning and certainly I can be wrong with my statements but I always like to share my findings.
We don't have other way to learn than trhough experiences " new " experiemces non-orthodox experiences.
Today I know for sure that the main audio subjects I learned in the past are not-true are wrong and are different.
For months maybe years I know exactly what kind of sound is enjoying Halcro and he can't believe it because I never been at his place but I know very well almost all his audio system items and his posts help me about. That's why he does not detect real differences between the TK7s and the way different 150ANV design but similar performances. I know that he as every one of us has to go up on that audio learning ladder.
That's why our each one appreciations are a little different and nothing wrong with that because help to all of us to discuss about and learn through that discussions. I always learn.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: I was thinking the same as you, the AT 50ANV could be a winner but is a little expensive.
In the other side I don't find out first hand opinions on that cartridge, at least to know if that " could be " can convert in " is ". IMHO first hand opinon always are valued.
What I know is that sooner or latter we have to put our hands on it.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " So if you believe that the speakers are unimportant. " +++++
please don't post or imagine things I did not say.
I have to recognize your habilities to " runaway " from the main subject in your/mine posts:
" that the 7s are similar to the ANV ". Instead to prove what you said it and after my post where I pointed out some of their design differences you go for the " tangent " distracting everyone from the main subject.
I don't care whom laugh about me, a lot of ignorants did it and today support what learned through my opinions and experieces including you: remember about subs? or TT naked fashion? and several other audio suvbject including MM/MI.
Those gentlemans as you loves euphonic/distorted/heavy colored sound, not you or them can deny because trhough their systems and through their system changes confirm about along what all of you posted through the years.
To make that test you are suggesting I need more accurate and neutral " ears " that can confirm about.
In the other side how you or that gentleman can understand my explanation of your system distortions when both of you are unaware of them: not even have idea what I'm talking about and in the other side how could you understand what I have to say when you unknow my references/standards to compare.
We are at different step in the audio learning ladder and this is a disadvantage for you and for me too.
You was the one that posted that the 7s are similar to the ANV but you not said how is that or where are those similarities on its design. So you have no answer and your answer is not a response but another answer to a diffrent subject coming from a different post.
As I said: if for you the Signet 7s performs similar to the ANV then IMHO there is a " terrible " problem down there, no doubt about.
Please don't take all this so personal, we have to learn that no one is perfect and that no one knows everything about audio/music as seems to me you think you did/are.
Nandric posted: ++++ " why do you need to contradict Raul by each possible ocassion? " ++++
I know that you can't handle my overall personality and this fact is a huge problem for you and every time you can showed your " disgust ".
The time always put all in the right place where each one belongs. We will see.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Yes, the SAEC is better than the FR and yes I still think the Grace is a fine unipivot tonearm: so what. Yes, the FR is a faulty design: so what if for you is the penultimate design. Years ago I was proudly of my SAEC tonearms but today that's only an old history with no real foundation to be proud to own it other than a good looking item very similar to the MS TT.
I can tell you that I know " something " about tonearm designs, maybe you know something that I'm unaware about. Which FR design characteristics make that design so " wonderful " from your point of view?, I'm willing to learn and maybe I can use those FR characterisitcs in our own design: why not!Q.
MS RX-5000 vs AS TT. Please re-read my posts on the RX-5000 where I name it why is so poor design and poor performer against not the AS TT but against almost any TT. The RXs are for rockies, I was one of them but not any more.
Halcro, you don't know and have no idea what you are talking about, not only with the Signet/ANV or tonearms or the JVC TT but what you posted about the MS and AS TTs has " no name ": whom is your advisor/coach?, no don't tell me I know it.
Useless to go on on audio subjects that you can't understand due that you are unaware and has no experiences on overall audio system distortions that are surrounded you and your system.
The best of all is that you can learn ( as I did it and as any person do it. ) and I'm sure you will and then when you learned you will stop to " laugh ". This was exactly what happened with the subs and other audio subjects where you had similar opinions because you was ignorant in those times and unaware of what I was talking about but you learned those audio " lessons "????right?. Seems you did not even that now you are using subs when in the past you " laughed " about.
Please go a head enjoying your system " toys " while I enjoy my " distortions " and let the thread go on.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: I agree with Fleib. Read again the Zenblaster post:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After the vibrations hit your eardrum, a chain reaction is set off. Your eardrum, which is smaller and thinner than the nail on your pinky finger, sends the vibrations to the three smallest bones in your body. First the hammer, then the anvil, and finally, the stirrup. The stirrup passes those vibrations along a coiled tub in the inner ear called the cochlea
Inside the cochlea there are thousands of hair-like nerve endings, cilia. When the Cochlea vibrates, the cilia move. Your brain is sent these messages (translated from vibrations by the cilia) through the auditory nerve.
Your brain then translates all that and tells you what you are hearing. Neurologists don't yet fully understand how we process raw sound data once it enters the cerebral cortex in the brain.
++++++++++++++++++
that means that the " signal " pass through a wide process and at each link in that process things can goes in a tiny or huge different way ( depends how or how much we are degraded inside. ) to each one of us, certainly no two one of us hear the same.
Not only is how that signal in the ears goes trhough that process but that our brain assoiate with that " signal sound " : experiences, feelings/emotions, knowledge on that past kind of sounds and many other kind of " inforamtion " that tame and give some kind of color of what we percieve.
The whole process is extremely complex and IMHO unknowed for any one of us.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: +++++ " One of the 2 remaining that I subconsciously didn't want to remove from use was the Adzen YM-P50VL. Raul, if you want to revisit some of the past champions of this forum, I would highly urge you to remount this gem..." ++
I know that that Azden always was and is a winner and I agree with you, there are a lot of cartridges that were put at the top of the cartridge quality performance ladder.
Yes, as you I think too that maybe is time to all of use to revisit all those gems. Some of us are " sticky " with one or two other good cartridges but maybe right now we need to compare these ones with the other champs. Maybe we can be surprised not only how good are those " old " performers but maybe we could be surprised that are even better that some of those cartridges we are sticky with.
I really want to do it and I will try hard to find out the time to do it.
We have/own own a huge: " mine of gems ", so why not use it!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Krenzler: Yes, that Technics 205MK3 is really good and the MK4 even better. Its overall performance is very near the EPC 100CMK4. Lucky you own that 205.
I never tested with the Jico/SAS stylus, good that you have success with because I read it in other forums where some persons ( as Acman3 ) were not so lucky with where other are very satisfied like you. Is dificult to say why those differences about.
++++ " The MC cartridges may be more "hi-fi" in some ways but they destract and dismantle the music and once the Technics MM is fitted again everything just falls into place and the ears and brain can relax again and enjoy the music. " +++++
that's an MM/MI characteristic but the problem IMHO is not that the LOMC " maybe more hi-fi " but that those cartridges are a lot more demanding with some " extreme " needs that are not easy accomplish it by tonearms/phono stages and when those LOMC cartridges needs are not fulfilled then we could think are in the hi-fi side and maybe that's what we could here but the culprit IMHO does not came/comes from the cartridge it self but for what is surrounded under playback.
The LOMC alternative is very good too and as the MM/MI one has its own demands that we have to fulfil for the cartridges can shows at its best.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
ear nandric: Unfortunately some one has to pay the price and normaly is the one that begin but remember that " patience " has its rewards and surprises, in fact my first X-1 cartridge body came to me by free even I did not know I owned because was mounted in a JVC headshell when I bought the JVC TT-71 and JVC tonearm. That money you name it was only for the MK2 stylus.
Give a little time to make the changes on those JVC cartridges to find out if are compatibles. Could be because the X-1 and Z models in theory were designed at the sime time sharinng same design. Let me check and let you know, Iwant to know too because " thank's " to you I remembered that I own too the Z-1E. I can't remember how much I paid for it but not much. The reality is that till today almost no one here cared on the JVC X/Z models and today result that at least the X-1 is the " holy grail " one.
There are many things that we have to learn and that are waiting to be discovered by us, that's why I always said and post that we have to " go on " to move a head and stop to be/been sticky with the old items. Life is to short and we have to enjoy every single day we still can enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric/Stltrains: Z-1 and X-1 JVC cartridges are not compatible on stylus in between ( the stylus bushing diameter is different. ) but not only that both cartridge series are different and shares no similar electrical specs as you can read here in the JVC flyer ( you can read too that those cartridges were non-available to USA and Canada. ):
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml
now I posted that IMHO there is nothing to share about the Z-1E cartridge I own because is not a good performer and this was/is confirmed here and not only with my step down from the top cartridge line but with the top of the line:
http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_reviews_form.php?id=1728
and here you can read about the one I own and the ones you own too:
http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_reviews_form.php?id=1731
http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_reviews_form.php?id=1730
and here you can see the Jico SAS for 133.00 stylus replacement. it's worth to try it?, I can't say for sure because I read it too that even with the Jico stylus the cartridge is not a top performer but if you are curious enough the buy it, from my part I decided what I already decided in the past with this cartridge: just forgt about. So is up to you:
http://stylus.export-japan.com/product_info.php?cPath=8&products_id=1293
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stltrains: Yes, some times we are lucky enough and some times not. We can " win " always.
+++++ " Buy the X-1 if you can find one. Only 3000 were ever made and they last sold for $1250 new in the mid 1980's. " +++++
well at today price the X-1 is a pricey cartridge. When I saw that ebay auction for a NOS sample and the seller stated that was/is the " holy grail " of the MM cartridges and read the 695.00 starting bid I just rejected from my mind.
First because I did not believe on that seller " holy grail " on sale factor and the other reason because that high starting auction bid but some days after I read the auction " by accident " I read in the top plate of " one cartridge ": X-1 and that's why I started my hunt for an original stylus replacement and I was lucky enough to found out on Netherlands.
Now, that I experienced the JVC X-1 have to recognize that the seller was absolutely right on what he stated about and the sold price was IMHO a " century bargain ".
IMHO if any of those wealthy LOMC lovers hear the X-1 with out knowing is a vintage MM and you tell them the cartridge is on sale for 15K+ I'm totally sure that some one of them will buy it with out question on it.
The VE person said 3,000 X-1 samples were builded and if I was any one of you from this moment and for the next months I start the X-1 hunting till I find out one! Believe me, the JVC X-1MK2 is a must to hear before any one " die ".
I'm just waiting to arrive my second sample. Here I can't understand why no one of you push harder on that X-1 ( UK ) sample when many of you knew about that ebay rare opportunity.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: Just for curiosity I gone to what the seller of my JVC TT posted on the ebay auction I won for 400.00:
++++ " UP FOR SALE IS A JVC QL-7 TURNTABLE. IT IS THE BLACK UNIT. IT COMES IN ITS ORIGINAL BOX WHICH HAS HEAVY WEAR AND MARKER WRITING ON THE BOX. THE UNIT ITSELF IS IN AWESOME CONDITION, THE CLEAR TOP HAS RUBBING FROM THE CARDBOARD INSIDE THE BOX, BUT MIGHT CLEAN UP IF YOU KNOW HOW. THERE IS NO STYLUS, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS THERE. THIS UNIT IS BEING SOLD USED AS IS, BUT IS POWER TESTED, IT LIGHTS UP, CHANGES WHEN YOU PRESS 33 OR 45, AND SPINS WHEN TURNED ON. I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE ITEM, BUT IT IS IN WONDERFUL COSMETIC CONDITION, ALMOST LIKE IT WAS USED VERY LITTLE, IF AT ALL. " +++++
well for that money I bought a JVC TT-71 TT in mint condition, the very well regarded JVC tonearm and the " Holy grail " JVC X-1 cartridge! and the seller was unaware of any of those JVC great items.
Nice experience.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Kostas_1: ++++++ " Could someone summarise this thread? " +++++
probably any one of us that participated not only posting in the thread but testing dozens of cartridges could summarise the " thread " but maybe could be useless:
IMHO the thread on MM/MI is more than simple: which ones are the best?, through each one of us experiences all of us find out several factors in each one cartridge that affected the overall cartridge quality performance level all those factors on cartridge set up have to be knowed by the person interested on those cartridges. At the end the target is not only know about cartridges and its performance level but how we can have to make the cartridge set up to achieve the best each cartridge should shows.
When the thread started I try to have a gradation on the cartridge performance level, a simple gradation from 0 to 10 and through the time that gradation lleft to work because new discoveries not only on new cartridges but on better way to make the cartridge set up on cartridges already graded. The thread took a very fast dynamics and from my self I give up on that cartridge gradation.
I agree with Timeltel that the thread is relevant on some subjects, it is not only MM/MI/LOMC cartridges: this is the easy part but as I said and as Timeltel said too there are many relevant information inside.
In the other side a gradation as you are suggesting could be complicated for the persons that are interested ( as you ) on it because in the thread exist several top audiophiles with diverse kind of opinions/gradations due not only because each one has a different audio system but because almost each one of us have several and different audio/music targets. So how any one could interpret what in fact means the cartridge gradation coming from: Nandric or Lewm or Dgarretson or Timeltel or Halcro or so many great thread's contributors.
Try to read step by step the thread and then share your experiences here and at the proper time try to make that gradation you are suggesting.
Welcome a board!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stltrains: +++++ " The best cartridge is the one that stays mounted and played most. " +++++
I think that your statement is almost a rule, whom can't argue against it?, comom sense dictated that.
Now, in my case best cartridge is the " next " one. Through these MM/MI thread years that's what my experiences tell me. Many times I proclamed that this or that was the best cartridge I heard and in a short time appeared a " new " candidate for that title. Right now the JVC X-1MK2 is in that place and waiting for the " next one ", well I'm waiting/looking for the next one.
Dgob said I'm a collector and no I'm not, I'm only an audiophile like you looking for " the best " but over time I learned that in the MM/MI land exist to many vintage unknow options waiting to be discovered for one of us. Which next?, I can't say it but certainly will be a " next ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: In the last weeks I was trying to give some time to the digital alternative source through my Denon DBP-2012UDCI ( DACs: 32bits/192khz. ).
This is a universal digital entry level ( I paid 700.00 for it. Last month appeared the 3313 that's almost the same unit. ) where maybe any one of you could have no great expectations on quality performance level against out beloved analog alternative.
Well, in the last few days I was and am listening different digital formats through it: CD, SACD and DVDA where in non of these formats the Denon disappoint me.
I have to say that in the last few years/months digital alternative advanced with high steps compared to analog alternative.
My take is that digital mis a lot more accurate, " natural "/non-colored and lower distortion alternative where we are nearer to the recording and nearer to the live event.
I compared CDs with its analog counterpart and simple as this: no analog contest, simple as that.
You can try it, for example take the LP Gladiator recording and compare it against not a DVDA/SACD but against a simple CD and this format beats in anyway to the LP recording.
Now, if we go up-scale digital format we encounter that DVDA is way above analog in any single way and you can talk of: frequency extremes, detail, transparency, soundstage, dynamics, timbre, pitch, balance and the like.
I could not find out where LP can beats the DVDA experience.
I know that many of you " hate " digital and I really wonder why other than your system needs to be re-set to digital needs. Something like when we pass from LOMC to MM ones or the other way around: we have to re-set somethings to fulfil the source needs.
Unfortunatelly there are not a wide choice of titles on DVDA/SACD or even CD of music performances we love and listen through LPs but if I could have the same music wide choice that I have on LP then with out doubt that the 100% of my listening will belonged to the digital medium.
It's clear fro me that the digital source is even better that what I'm listening at home because my player is a humble entry level but the top gear$$$ must be even better.
Yes, there are CDs that sounds awful but there are LPs that sounds awful too and this fact does not diminish either medium in any way.
IMHO a good digital recording is a lot lot better than a good analog recording.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Last night I was " disecting " some analog/digital recordings and ( at least in the ones I heard. ) in all of them digital beats its analog counterpart.
Foreigner 4: I have the LP, CD and DVDA and both LP and CD are a caricature of the great DVDA recording: you really never heard Lou Graham at its best as in this DVDA, this guy voice really shine: some people said that Lou only knows shout but can't sing, well in Foreigner 4 DVDA I would like that those Lou's detractors try to " shout " as Graham did it: WOW!
Btw, this recording showed not if M.Jones is a great guyitarist because IMHO it's not but a great composer alond LG.
Take G.Benson Breezin that's a great Benson recording. I own the original pressing and the OMR from Mobile Fidelity and again the DVDA recording beats both LPs with " real life " sounds.
I have the Concord label original LP and re-release from analog masters LP of LA4 ( Just friends: Almeida, Brown, Hamilton and Shank. ): there is no analog contest, the DVDA is clearly a superior source.
REM: Losing my religion track, three formats: LP, CD and DVDA. Even that the recording in all formats is not the best out there the DVDA one still at the top.
Do you like or remember: Donald Fagen?, well Steely Dan LP,CD and DVDA and you know what the DVDA beats the other formats again.
I have some CD-like digital recordings made it by Classic Records Label advertized as: " master tape sound " 24/96 DAD. I took one of them that happen I have a today audiophile LP re-release: Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. Both recordings: LP and DVDA are good ones but ( I think ) due to the bass content on the recording the >DVDA transmit in deepest way the music emotions. Here the LP recording is near the DAD one but still behind it.
I don't know if my Denon player is something especial because I have nop other digital today player at hand but even the DTS/HDS digital recording of Santana/Abraxas beats the LP recording.
What can I say with those overwhelming evidence clear evidence of the DVDA format against the LP one? and my Denon is a humble digital today entry level.
I will follow making analog/digital comparisons because I'm fortunate enough to have several recordings in both formats ( LP/DVDA ), even I don't knew I have it because for years I think don't touched. I never imagine to own those 24/96 CD-like DADs by Classis Records a nice discovery.
Of course I'm happy and enjoying digital better than ever thank's to that Denon universal digital player.
I hope you can have a chance to hear one of those DVDA I name it here and compare to its LP counterpart.
Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: If I remember the Oppo comes with the SABRE 32bit DA>C so it has to performs very good.
Now please buy the Gladiator LP and the old Gladiator CD and compare it and I'm sure you will understand in better way what I'm talking about because I'm talking too o0f " real life ": what if not?, I'm talking of " live music/even ".
Now, not all RBCD sounds good, probably more are mediocre than good ones recordings.
The OPPO as my Denon are universal players and maybe you could have the opportunity to test a DVDA, please do it because IMHO this format is supeior overall to the LP experience.
I like to compare digital/analog first than all not thinking on all the effort/work/money that I already put on my analog system and not thinking on all the analog software I own. I like to make digital/analog comparisons with out all those analog baggage that is so weighty that could interfer with my sane judgements.
I really try to be unbiased about, like some one that never heard it any of those two mediums but for the first time.
Some of you could think that I'm not hearing first rate analog quality performance but I can tell you that at least I'm hearing very good analog quality level performance tthrough my system and IMHO I'm sure of that because when I swtich to digital I hear the digital superiority changing/re-set nothing in the whole system set up when years ago I had to make some re-set in the system set up to " enjoy " digital, not today.
Now, it's my take that in a home audio system the main target is try to achieve the highest bass management on the source medium. I worked hard to acomplish it and still working on. Well, in this sole regards the analog source experience can't even the digital one. That " real life " you are refering when we talk on bass management the analog source is far away from the real life than its digital counterpart.
We are talking here of definition, transparency, pitch, dynamics, transients handling, power, quality and quantity of that bass and everything with lowest distortions that contaminate the less the audio overall signal than the analog experience.
Lewm, maybe you can try this now that you have the " latest " digital techynology. Let me explain: in that TW thread that you are participating I posted that to prove our each one reaction/sensitivity to tiny speed changes ( not fluctuations but different but constant speed changes, example: 33.37 to 33.39 rpm. ) we try for a week to listen not to 33.33 but 33.39 ( the ones with a pitch control TT can do it ) and after that week listen again to that 33.33 rpm and tell now what you liked more: after that week. Well, listen for a whole week to the best digital format you have access and after that week compare the same digital recording to the LP recording and then come back here and share your experience.
Please don't argue about but better than that some time in your future try it. The only thing you can lose is one week of your time but you really don't lose nothing but I'm sure you will learn " something ".
Don't misunderstood: I still support the analog experience but I support too the digital one for different well gained reasons.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: Here you are again with nothing to win and all to lose,ok!
++++ " just as valid as his opinion on valves vs SS " ++++
I don't know your opinion but if you are for tube that's fine for me. The tube/SS subject is not a contest because for that we need two similars contenders and there both are way different ones. Those audiophiles that supports tube electronic technology IMHO do it because ignorance of what happen down there.
Btw, ignorance is the mother of all wars.
First, the Gladiator example is only that an example where a CD beats its analog/LP counterpart but: where I affirm that the Gladiator sounds as live event, don't put words in my mouth and please read what I posted before react with no sense as you did it.
Always that I talked ( in this trhread or other threads ) of the superior digital technology that puts us nearer to the recording and nearer to the live event I always talked of DVDA ( 24/192. ) digital format never on RBCD: GOT IT!!!!!!!
Now, for any one of you could refute my statements first than all has to own the latest digital technology on DACs and this means 32bits/192 and up DACs. Do you have it?, then close your mouth or shout with the right foundations.
Yes, IMHO your digital ignorance level is to high to try to argue something with out clear foundation because your player I think has not the latest digital technology. My entry level one has it and not only that Denon is perhaps the today pioneer on digital recording ( Denon PCM. ) and digital design and manufacturer PCM recording items and a very old audio analog/electronics manufactuer and that's why I choosed over the Oppo or other entry level digital manufacturerers.
Whom really are you speaking of digital?, it was not a surprise to me that you react for the "nt'h " time in exactly the same way as you did here: This was your latest post on digital this year, remember?:
+++++ " 01-26-13: Halcro When it comes to audio.....I don't let DACs, transports or computers enter my listening room. I am a strictly analogue (vinyl) buffoon. " +++++
Do you think that I can take you seriously on a digital source discussion?, certainly not. You are just unaware of what today means music digital source.
Pardon me but I don't want to start a " war " because the wide differences on our ignorance level on the digital source.
TK7Lca?, maybe not even on analog. I don't want to touch your heavy system distortions that you are unaware but this is not what you posted where accept you can't be aware of cartridge differences through top rated headphones ( AUDEZE LCD 2 ) ?:
++++ " I was interested in hearing the sound of my 'System'....with the room 'effect' taken out of the equation? A major disappointment! Not only did I not enjoy the 'music in my head' experience......but I found that my speakers....at even low volumes.....gave me more information about the recordings than the head-phones. I am able to distinguish the differences between cartridges, arms and turntables quite readily with my speakers.....yet am unable to via the headphones? " ++++++
I understand that in your 3-way speakers the woofer goes up to 950 hz to crossover the midrange. Do you know wich is the IMD and THD generated level sole by these woofers. Have you an idea? Please forget it, never mind and not important to any one but you.
These are some arguments why analog can't be a challenge to the today digital source, please let me know your arguments against it other than: " I like it or I don't like it":
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++ " ++++++ " that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound. " +++++
I agree, the digital can't approach that type of sound. IMHO : Why can't approach it?, because analog/LP is totally faulty.
The analog signal is heavily manipulated, let see it:
when recorded and to be cutted ( LP. ) the signal must be equalized according to the RIAA standard and this means and equalization that goes from 20hz to 20khz +,- 20dbs!!!!!!!this deemphasis means added distortions, phase chnages, non-linear anomalies, added noise, additional stages where the signal have to pass through. Then the signal is trasfered to vinyl with all imperfections where does not exist a perfect cutting system, here there is several kind of signal loses: certainly what is in the recording was not what was recorded before all that proccess.
When we want to hear the LP in our audio system that analog signal must be recovery through the phono stage for we can attain a flat frequency response ( just like exist ( with out RIAA eq. ) in a digital medium. ) so inside the phono stage that signal pass again for an additional RIAA eq. ( this time an inverse eq. ) with all the heavy degradation: distortions, phase problems, added noise, colorations, etc, etc, etc.
Inside that phono stage the very low output signal must be amplified ( sometimes 10K times!!! ) to a level where the preamp can handle it as it handle in "; natural"; way the digital signal that has a lot higher output level. Through the high gain proccess the signal pass through 3-5 additional stages that continue degrading the signal continue adding more distortions ( of every kind ), nothing of this happen with the digital medium. That very low output signal characteristic makes that the signal be extremely sensitive to be degraded by everykind of " pollulation " ( electrical/magnetic. ) where the higher digital output signal is a lot less suceptible of that kind of degradations.
All those is what happen to an electronics level now we have to add the worst of all the signal manipulation:
a cartridge to " read " the recorded information, a cartridge is a rudimentary " instrument " for say the least. Cartridge designers make some kind of " magic "/tremendous efforts for the cartridge can makes its critical/titanic job.
A cartridge is an " unstable " tool, everything affect its performance: kind of cantilever and cantilever build material, stylus shape and with which kind of quality was builded, room temperature, kind and quality of cartridge suspension, cartridge motor design, cartridge body resonances, cartridge ridiculous pin connectors, etc, etc, each part of the cartridge degraded the original signal with out exception.
After that the cartridge must be mounted in a tonearm for it can ride the LP and one of the first challenges that the signal has to deal with are the " stupid " tonearm wire connectors to the cartridge and then the in ternal tonearm wire and the the additional IC between the tonearm and the phono stage. In all those links the signal continue degrading, this does not happen in the digital alternative: so no signal degradation.
But the worst for the " end " ( sometimes I think the analog medium is: endless of problems. ):
now the stylus tip hit the LP grooves and at microscopic level that stylus tip start a heavy fight against the grooves/its compliance and tracking habilities to stay in the grooves to be in touch always and this happen almost never ( especialy with low compliance cartridges as the LOMC ones. ). The stylus tip is " jumping " generating distortions and harmonic distortions. All this " fight " is transmited through the cartridge body to the tonearm which start to resonate ( adding distorions, non.linear anomalies, atc, atc. ) according those cartridge self resonances and according the cartridge compliance/tonearm effective mass.
But all the information captured by the cartrdige has not only a doses of tracking distortions becuase non-perfect cartridge tracking habilities but distortions because the stylus tip never coincide with the grooves never coincide on how the grooves were cutted!!!!! not even in a linear tracking tonearms.
Why is that? for several reasons: the LPs comes all with waves that preclude a perfect alignement trhough all the LP tracks. There is no perfect tonearm/cartridge set up it doesw not matters which geometry alignment we choose: Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson, etc, etc, in all them there is tracking errors for a pivoted tonearm and that tracking errors means added distortions in the signal path. Btw and talking of set up there is no perfect cartridge set up_ VTA/SRA/azymuth, overhang/etc, load impedance, load capacitance, etc, etc. All these parameters all the playback time are changing because all the LP imperfections including different LP weights, excentricity LP " center " hole. Don't forget the TT speed unaccuracies, speed unstability, rumble, wow&fluter, platter resonances, TT bearing ones, tonearm/TT mount board feedback and of course system SPL feedback that affect every analog rig.
I can go on and on and on with all the " thousands " degradation links where the analog signal must pass but as an example I think is enough.
Gentlemans, IMHO it is a " miracle " that we all after all those kind of degradations we still can enjoy the analog sounds!
+++++ " it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers... " +++++
these and other adjectives that we audiophiles used to use when refereing to LP quality performance experiences does not comes in the recording in the original recording , those " characteristics " are a result of the heavy degradation that suffer the analog signal, degradation that does not exist in the digital alternative so that's why both mediums sounds different. Of course that digital has its own trade-offs, well I prefer it: is truer to the recording.
That we like it the analog alternative does not confirms and does not means in any sense that is right, IMHO is wrong almost dead wrong.
I prefer digital HR for music sound reproduction at home because I 'm nearest to the original sound that passed through the recording microphones with lower " artefacts " than in the analog domain.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. " +++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seems to me that when you hear the " word " digital you put in panic in the same way almost all of us analog guys were when appeared " the perfect sound for ever "/CD that fortunately in those old times that panic disappears very fast due to the starting digital technology imperfections but times changes and today things are really different. Please don't be in panic and like today Nandric and I enjoy both alternatives some day in your future.
Please stay calm, learn and then come back to a more serious discussion a non-biased discussion.
Regrads and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Sarcher30: Your digital item was released in 2007 and starting the marketing in 2010 and has not the latest digital DACs and in the other hand Linn is supported by the DSD SACD and not directly the PCM DVDA this fact alter a little what we are hearing.
Now, in the same way that exist bad analog recordings exist bad digirtal ones, example the today Telarc 1812 DSD ( format DVDA ) that's terrible for say the least or Faith Hill " Cry " title or the 24/96 DAD Classic Records: Pictures at an Exhibition with the Saint Louis Symp. Orcht.
In the other side DVDA from: Artificial Intelligence ( from motion picture ) very good as the recording for: Jane Monheit " Dream with me ".
Btw, the Fagen recording I was refereing it is: Two against Nature.
Sarcher30, today digital source is extremely demanding to any audio system where you can hide nothing because the very low distoritons on the digital medium so many times what we don't like it is not the digital format but in reality what we don't like it is the " true "/naked real system quality performance level that through analog all those " system imperfections " are hiden and we can't aware of it due to the higher analog distortions. Please think a mom,ent on this with out any source alternative bias.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Harold-no-the-barrel: Maybe that's a mistake. One of the oldest digital recording items was the Soundstream used ( between other labels. ) by Telarc and its frequency recording range was/is: 0hz to 22khz where the Denon one goes to 24khz, both running at 16bits PCM approach. These is what Soundstream/Denon stated.
Yhat 192khz number means that the recording record frequencies up to 96khz PCM when the DSD format goes beyond 100khz and both start at 0hz.
There are some contradictions on those numbers and people that said is 20 to 20khz but what you can measure are those numbers.
One " problem " with the RBCD was its limited high frequency range that goes " only " to around 22khz against near 50khz that in theory analog can goes. Today that does not exist any more and even through oversampling DACs and digital technology advanced a lot.
This digital " everyday " improvements makes for me never buy a high price player/DAC because in very short time is obsolete due that that fast digital development where each time a new DAC appears quality performance level goes up.
Where player technology goes not to fast is when we talk about the player's transports even that is in continuous development goes slower.
My ignorance level on the whys " inside " digital technology is very high but improving through self and other learning process.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Sarcher30: Your digital item was released in 2007 and starting the marketing in 2010 and has not the latest digital DACs and in the other hand Linn is supported by the DSD SACD and not directly the PCM DVDA this fact alter a little what we are hearing.
Now, in the same way that exist bad analog recordings exist bad digirtal ones, example the today Telarc 1812 DSD ( format DVDA ) that's terrible for say the least or Faith Hill " Cry " title or the 24/96 DAD Classic Records: Pictures at an Exhibition with the Saint Louis Symp. Orcht.
In the other side DVDA from: Artificial Intelligence ( from motion picture ) very good as the recording for: Jane Monheit " Dream with me ".
Btw, the Fagen recording I was refereing it is: Two against Nature.
Sarcher30, today digital source is extremely demanding to any audio system where you can hide nothing because the very low distoritons on the digital medium so many times what we don't like it is not the digital format but in reality what we don't like it is the " true "/naked real system quality performance level that through analog all those " system imperfections " are hiden and we can't aware of it due to the higher analog distortions. Please think a mom,ent on this with out any source alternative bias.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stltrains: +++++ " digital is not for me when im ready for serious music listening.
From where vinyl playback went and where it is today with digital taking a setback i would have to say most prefer the very listenable sound of analog to the edgy choped sound of digital IMO. " +++++
for serious listening?, seriously?
edgy choped sound?, this sound as you are in the 70's but IMHO with the latest digital msource that normally does not happen. Your and other people digital complaints were the same I had for several years till I started to learn and to test over the years to attest the digital improvements. The digital " myths complanint " is something like the SS electronics: that were true in the started years but not today but everyone that learned that way today are suffering the tube distortions because they don't be aware that SS improves over the years, with digital is similar attitude a wrong attitude from my point of view/experiences.
What I think is that you need to be seriously about digital and taake the " bull by it horns ": buy a today digital entry level as my Denon and some digital software where DVDA can help you and then give a seriously listening to digital.
Warning: digital is for every one, is it your system digital ready?. Please don't blame digital in case you don't like it but first analize where could be the " problem " if at all.
Digital as MM/MI or LOMC ask for the right set up and deserve no less attention that the one you give to your cartridges set up.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Analog lovers: IMHO digital is ready for any one of us and the main questions are:
Am I ready to digital mentally/unbiased? and the second one:
Is it my audio system ready to digital, ready to shows digital at its best to enjoy it?
IMHO we need a Yes two those questions for we can talk or better yet to start first than all: understand what is happening down there and then enjoy it.
Both music sources are way different so we have no single reason not only to compare in between but expect that one could sounds near/similar the other. If we are waiting that IMHO is a big mistake: to each medium what deserve.
The only matchinmg characteristic is that both mediums makes " sounds ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: Yes, really.
Now: +++++ " I did not like the sound of the Denon player and picked a much nicer Marantz SACD player " ++++
are you talking of the same Denon model I own?. In the other side, for whatever reason I prefer the quality performance level of the DVDA over the SACD.
I agree with Nandric when he said that some SACD counterparts sounds the same as the RBCD and this fact I never encountered when speaking of DVDA.
Yes, the big problem is that now the DVDA is almost defunct but still we can get some hundred of titles. Yes, I will put my hands on " all " the ones I can find out. I need to make my digital library in the same way I builded the LP one.
Btw, how many hour do you already put on the 150 ANV? and: do you tested with different headshells or in more than one tonearm?
Precept 550: same questions that with the ANV, could you help? Thank you in advance.
About the Precept that means you don't have yet the 440 stylus sample, right?
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: The other " great " digital expectation I have is that the whole digital recording process be improved because IMHO the people responsable of the recording process are people trained and accustomed ( as us ) to the analog source recording process and maybe the digital one could means to make some " changes " down there ( I don't know for sure because I'm ignorant on the whole recording process. ) as maybe that recording process needs new recording machines/items starting for a new kind of micros. Don't you think?
IMHO all these and what I posted before on digital alternative is for me part of the digital medium learning curve and certainly each one of us have each one digital learning curve. Where are you, which your position on that learning curve?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Thuchan: ++++++ " I do not understand his crusades against good products he is owning like the Micro or the SAEC WE 8000. " +++++
I used SAEC 8000 and 506 tonearms for 18+ years and comparing it to other great vintage and today tonearms with several cartridges in several TT options. Along those years I learned a lot on audio and learned about those great looking SAEC tonearms and that's why I don't use it any more. How many years do you have on the SAEC experience?. I took 18 years to be sure to be aware that were not so good as I was thinking. I already posted somewhere the whys about.
Why you don't understand me?, easy: this is what you posted today in other thread:
++++ " running a TSD Anniversary in the Ortofon RMA 309 via a Western Electric 618B SUT to the EMT JPA-66 phono stage. This is my DreamLine " ++++++
and that's why you can't understand. We are different, where you like heavy distortions I'm at the oposite side where I'm not very tolerant to any kind of distortions.
IMHO your EMT JPA-66, WE SUT ( I owned reciently and fortunatelly sold . ) and RMA309 are reference for distortions for a way colored quality performance far away from a natural accurate low distorted quality performance I'm acustomed to enjoy.
We like different kind of " distortions " different kind of quality performances. Not because we hear different but because we like different due to each one music/sound experiences that are different from sometime now.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: +++++ " The Denon DP100 compared to my Final Audio auditioned in the same system compresses dynamics and overloads with complex music " +++++
Two way different TTs and maybe both with different tonearms too. How could you be so sure that the culprit came from the DP-100 where maybe ( I don't know ) could existed the possibility that was more accurated?, hard to say.
Btw, I prefer my Denon or JVC DD TTs to the SP-10s.
IMHO for whatever reasons my system is running just fine and improving, including analogue. At least I can't detected problems/distortions against other top systems.
Look, IMHO the best tool we have to rank any system distortion levels is when you runned the digital alternative then you will know where you are: like it or not, it not your choice it is what you have and the good news here is that you have a big big land to improve where this " improve " means too that you will enhance the analog alternative too.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I'm following enjoying my digital/analog same tittle comparisons.
Took the turn to the Symphony Of a Thousand by Mahler with the Utha Sym. Orcht. under Abravanel batute. This is an original recording under the very well regarded Vanguard Label ( Stereolab ). I own several recordings from Vanguard and normally are good ones.
The LP is an audiophile re-issue direct from the Master tapes where the digital counterpart is the 24/192 DAD version. Here I have no doubt that if almost any one of you listen to these versions you will prefer the LP one if for no other thing because it is warm a not edgy at freqency extreme where the DAD version is the opposite: a little edgy and more real with out that false warm unexistence in live events. Is it that little edgy characteristic a wrong/bad one?, I don't think so. What I think is that it is in this way as is in the recording and the DAD is faithful to it. Why can I assume that?, read it the next comparison. Btw, as almost usual the digital version makes the right justice to the recorded bass frequency range even that the LP in this recording is very good.
Next, I listening again to the 45 rpm Analogue Productions re-issue on the original Turnabout vox recording of the Symphonic Dances by Rachmaninoff against its 24/96 DAD counterpart. Everyone of you that own that LP knows is a very good LP by any analogue standards and shows analogue at its best ( perhaps only second to D2D LP format. ). Here the digital showed no single sign of edgy sound over the frequency range and as always shiny on its bass management handled. Where are the basic differences in both mediums/alternatives: the digital one ( believe it or not ) has more " body " more " hey it's like a live even t "., for example the " pandero " ( name in spanish of the spanish percussion round small instrument played with one hand hold it and the other hitting the rounded wood ring and the circle covered/linning tomove several pairs of metal tyny cimball-like. Got it? ) has a tiniest sound trhough the LP than the more " complete " digital sound. Same happen with the wind instruments that have that natural agresivenes where the LP is more rounded and soft.
All in all both performances are very good but again the digital is at the top.
I'm not a fanatic of the Cello music/instrument but after heard the 24/96 DAD of Baker works under the Cello Janos Starker skills maybe I could change my way of thinking on that instrument. Good recording.
Those of you that have today digital players could test three DVDA ( 24/96 ) from Teldec label: Orff Carmina Burana with the London Philarmonic under Mehta batute, Ravel Bolero Orchestra de Paris under Martignon and Barenboim and the Berliner with the Beethoven No. 9
Of course I will follow listening/testing DVDA especially the latest recordings that are DVDA native ( 24/192 not 24/96 ) format.
Btw, other reason to follow with digital is that exist a lot of music recorded only in digital formats, great music that even if we want it we can't heard it through the analogue format.
So, we music lovers must follow the MUSIC in any single format we can find out and things are that today exist a lot of great MUSIC through only in the digital alternative and we have no other choice!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: I understand and yes digital source helps a lot to fine tunning any home audio system. As you said through a top digital source.
+++++ " anything like full orchestra in my view is where digital collapses " +++++
well it can collapse under any kind of music but that IMHO is not a digital characteristic today and could depend more on the DACs aged/vintage.
I don't know if you own that Mahler 8o. recording that IMHO is extremely demanding as could be the Beethoven Nine or even C.Burana. In my humble Denon I can't detected that.
In the other side there is that posibility you touched when the reccording was not up to the task.
Digital is extremely intolerant with " errors " not only inside an audio system but inside the whole recording process.
In the digital Mahler recording I can hear an " artefact/ "/sounds, I can't identify what can be, on the right speaker side and this unknow sounds it is not present in the LP performance.
I think that to listen to digital source we have to have a latest player with the latest DACs, this is critical.
Obviously I'm enjoying my entry level Denon player that for 700.00 gives me a lot more than analog can. I can enjoy not only DVDA but CDs DVDV and SACD in an unexpected very high quality performance and additional a first rate Blue Ray, so I win in both areas: audio and video for " peneauts ".
I still have an old Rotel CD player and the Denon one I was using before the 2012. Yes, with the Rotel digital is almost unlistenable, things improves a little with the other Denon and improves fully with the 2012. Main differences are the DACs and the way lowered the jitter and other improvements but the DAC is where reside the main difference.
I know that maybe in less than six months I will have to change my 2012 for the latest one but for 700.00 that is not big deal for any one of us.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I'm not trying to convince that you change from analog to digital for day by day music listening. far away from there.
After the Harold-not-the-barrel post it is clear for me that some of you really understand nothing of my main subjects in what I posted and if some of you don't understand that's up to you. Stay where you are because is where you belong.
Now, for the ones that understood my digital posts as Dover, Lewm, Nandric and several more I would like to insist that digital IMHO is the best tool we have today to know the real quality performance level each one audio system has.
For we can use it that digital tool we need to own a TODAY 32bits/192 DACs player ( with all respect: not a 24bit " professional " or a cassete machine. ) and some DVDA or some CDs. Through my posts you have a DVDA choices and latter when I be at my place I will give a list of CDs that could help about.
The rewards in this digital experience is that when your system is digital ready ( and you know what I mean with digital ready. Yes, maybe you have to make some changes/modifications " here and there ". ) and you start to enjoy digital recordings then your analog experience in your system will not only outperform what you are listening now but you will have the best quality performance in your system ever and obviously you will enjoy the analog alternative in a non-imaginable wayand you can do it with the audio system you own today.
I have to insist here that the primary main target is to have the top bass management you can and the only way/source to really know about is through digital source.
Gentlemans, my main target is to be at the last analog quality performance frontier along the digital alternative too. IMHO we can't approach that last analog quality performance frontier with out the digital help as a tool.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: For those interested on the digital tool to improve your today quality performance level these CDs could help you and I think you can find out easy. All are Original Picture Soundtracks, obviously that there are a lot of other CDs than can help but these ones is a good point to start.
- The Day After Tomorrow - The Mission - 1492 Conquest of Paradise - The Thin Red Line - Memoirs of a Geisha - Gladiator
all are demanding recordings and Gladiator is " extremely " demanding.
I'm sure that when you can enjoy those CDS and especially the one from the motion picture Gladiator you will " live " on analog heaven: NOT BEFORE.
The main target is to lower system overall distortions elsewhere the audio system. As you go tolerating in better way Gladiator or other CDs as your system quality performance level is improving from sure, in the same way as less tolerating are your ears with those CDs as worst and lower is your system quality performance level and it does not matters that you think: " I like it ". Sometimes we could like crap/trash, so what?.
Simple as that. Lewm posted simple as that:
+++++ " implementing the 105 in my system has finally enabled me to understand much better what else is going on with new cartridges, phono stage modifications, and amplifier and speaker upgrades. " +++++
Btw, my LP/digital comparisons were using the JVC X-1MK2 and Transfiguration Phoenix cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Thank's. Now:
++++ " OMHO but in the wrong places or statements. If you would use OMHO by your 'convinctions' nobody would have any problem with your statements. " +++++
certainly I need your help to understand exactly your always welcomed advises. These two statements came from the same post ( one of my latest posts ): please enlight me what is wrong and why ( thank you in advance:
+++++ "I would like to insist that digital IMHO is the best tool we have today to know the real quality performance level each one audio system has. " +++++++
+++++ " IMHO we can't approach that last analog quality performance frontier with out the digital help as a tool. " +++++
obviously that those are my today convictions.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: ++++ " However the most of us who have decided for analog may be assumed to have already compared with digital. You point is then that we need to try again I assume? " ++++
I'm there too. All audio technology improves over the time some faster than others and today the latest digital one it is not only worth to enjoy it but could help for we can improve our analog experiences when we use it as a tool to understand in better way where we are where distortions are affecting the quality performance on each one system.
An advantage to use latest digital technology as a tool is that as Lewm pointed out is does not change I mean we heard the same recording/tracks in the same manner always with the same response many times as could be necesary during our tests, the other advantage is that the digital source has IMHO the lowest distortion level we could find out and this helps to identify the system " problems " to make there some changes as can be need it.
We can use it even if we refuse to enjoy it through listen it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: ++++ " While the chipset in the Dac is important, the analog output, and EVERYTHING else is equally important. " +++++
absolutely right: ANALOG OUTPUT. Many times players with the same chipset sounds way different and the main difference is the analog stage player design.
Now, I would like to understand not only the real quality performance difference between my Denon an a 20K+ digital player but what in the design contributed to those differences if at all.
Next week I will have the opportunity tohear in my system the latest Esoteric machines, we will see.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: +++++ " Yamaha cassette deck in a closet somewhere. Then we could get some distortions going! " ++++
maybe some of you could understannd it that I tryed to diminish Harold in some ways because his cassete reference but that was not my intention other than post that what I'm talking about was on latest digital technology.
Btw, I own the Nakamichi 700ZXL and a lot of software for it including several Orinal Master recordings samples. I updated this machine through caps/resistors changes in some of its circuit boards and years ago we have a shootout against an A80 Studer open reel: no contest there but even on the differences people likes what they heard through the Nakamichi. Like you I think I don't touched by 20K+ years.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: ++++++ " Just one word: UNBELIEVABLE! Takeda san and less well known Hiroaki Hibino(Klipsch and Zenn MCZ) thought that other carts lacked dynamics and made their own as a reaction. According to me they have never heard the AT 180 ML/OCC. " +++++
good that finally you are " really " hearing what the 180 can shows you. This cartridge is something very especial, so especial that never was marketed in America but into the Asia market and some samples in Europe. I was lucky that the México AT CEO was and is a close friend and trhough him I put my hands on it as in other non-America AT products.
In the past I posted about the AT 180 top quality performance level but not many people really cares about.
Btw, by ANV that's still improving and showing better quality performance level remember me the 180 ML/OCC. Perhaps before the ANV that 180 is the best AT group cartridge design even a top the TK10MLMK2.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |