Halcro, Try holding a light piece of paper against your tonearm while its playing and see if you can feel any vibration. That should tell you all you need to know about how much vibration travels down a tonearm.
Sean
Sean
Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?
And yes, it can represent lost information…Interesting……..and yet compared to master tape, we seem to have lost little information? And compared to digital….we appear to have gained additional information?! The scale of microscopic movement involved with the electro-mechanical process of the magnetic phono cartridge is bordering on molecular. Do you realize the scale of mechanics involved in transmitting energy into the mass of a tonearm in comparison? It would be like the effect of a spider’s movement on the steel girders of the Brooklyn Bridge? And just supposing that it did occur?…….it would be logical then to assume that the maximum excursions of the stylus assembly would be the largest to be transmitted into the cartridge body and thence into the tonearm? These excursions occur with the bass frequencies so one would expect a much greater loss of bass in all cartridges? And ‘heat’ is the first indication of energy dissipation and is easily measurable. Please show me the evidence? Any studies?……any data?…..any?….any? But the best argument against your ‘lost information’ claim is not scientific. It is strangely enough….’Marketing’. Each manufacturer would have released new cartridges over the last 50 or so years with the claim of .………..’Less Information Lost’!!! But I have never seen it? How can I prove to your satisfaction that the tracing of a record groove by a stylus attached to a cantilever would impart energy into the cantilever and hence into structures to which the cantilever is attached, ultimately to the cartridge body?Please don’t worry about my ‘satisfaction’…..just attempt a proof….any scientific proof…..of your claim? |
Dear Halcro/Lewm: Yes, I agree that in many ways can be non-practical and almost always the cartruidge is safe with the stylus guard attached but honestly I don't care about, I don't like to sacrifice quality performance level for " been practical ". I have almost all my carrtridges: the ones mounted and the ones on " the waiting line " with out stylus guards. Yes, it is " a pain in the ass " and I had " suffer " some " accidents but at least I can live with in favor of the music. On this subject the LOMC carrtridges has an advantage due that its stylus guard is " removable ", I think that only my Fulton comes with stylus guard and if I remember some Denon cartridges in the past came with non-removable stylus guard. I can't remember but one of my MM/MI cartridges came with non-removable SG and I mean it: non-removable. The stylus guard is a resonance/distortions focus as is the body of the remvoable MM/MI cartridge stylus ( that hold the cantilever/stylus. ). Some MM/MI cartridges comes with " removable " stylus guard ( like the LOMC fashion. ) and with non-removable stylus ( as LOMC ones. ) and IMHO the designers did it for good reasons The Technics P100CMK4, AKG P100LE, B&O, ADC TRX, Clearaudio Virtuoso, etc, etc are some of that kind of cartridges. As Ct0517 in some of my cartridges I glued the stylus/cantilever body to the carrtridge body and this makes a difference for the better too. I know that that coukld be non-practical but again if you cares about quality perfoprmance level then you have no choice and need to do it. Anyway, almost all of you own several MM/MI cartridges then try to give you the opportunity to test about with one cartridge and then decide by your self. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
How can I prove to your satisfaction that the tracing of a record groove by a stylus attached to a cantilever would impart energy into the cantilever and hence into structures to which the cantilever is attached, ultimately to the cartridge body? Since you are in the decided minority in your thinking that such a thing does not happen (assuming I am correctly stating your position), perhaps it is you who should prove to us that your position is the correct one. Sure, there is marketing hype about methods used to dissipate this energy in the most harmless way possible (vis Lyra and Ortofon, to name two companies that address this issue verbally and in their designs), but that does not mean that the phenomenon is not real. I have to say that for me the problem is so patently obvious that I cannot imagine your argument that it does not exist. Maybe we can start there. |
Hello Danny i have a gold bought on ebay a few years ago nos. I bought a nos stylus assy from bluz brothers not long after its like Rauls review picture. I like the early version better than the gold and yes they are interchangeable but the shapes are slightly different and the two stylus require different vta adjustment. Mike |
Hi Lew, The physics suggest that the problem would be worse for low compliance (MC) cartridges than for high compliance (MM or MI) ones, because the former type get a hard ride through the grooves, sending more in the way of shock waves up the cantilever and into the motor and cartridge body.Please show me how the 'shock waves' travel into the cartridge body? And what ARE the 'shock waves'? I would appreciate you both pointing me to 'white papers' or scientifically published vector diagrams of these forces? Repeating meaningless phrases from marketing blurb or relying on the dubious fallback....."it is generally accepted".....is neither convincing nor scientific. |
Dear Halcro, As regards your little discussion with Fleib re vibrational energy emanating from a phono cartridge, I would like to add my voice to that of Fleib. IMO, you are incorrect if you think that such a phenomenon does not occur. And yes, it can represent lost information, which is why tonearm and cartridge designers fret over how to control it. (Did you read the piece on how JCarr designed his latest TOTL cartridge, so as to minimize the resonant peak of the body itself?) The physics suggest that the problem would be worse for low compliance (MC) cartridges than for high compliance (MM or MI) ones, because the former type get a hard ride through the grooves, sending more in the way of shock waves up the cantilever and into the motor and cartridge body. I'm with you on stylus guards. I have several cartridges sitting on a table next to my turntables, lying on their backs such that the slightest mishandling could crush the cantilever. Thus I am loathe to remove the stylus guards, altho I take Raul's point that it would be sonically beneficial. Interestingly, the only one of my vintage MM or MI cartridges that is "naked" is the Stanton 980LZS that I like so much. I removed its built-on brush early on when I first bought it, as well. |
I have little doubt that removing the stylus guard will benefit every cartridge.....just as you say Raul. My problem is psychological and practical. Ay any one time I am likely to have at least four cartridges with swing-down guards, sitting in four different arms on my two turntables. At least once a month I dust and vacuum around my turntables and the guards provide a modicum of protection against accidental stylus damage? As I play records and clean and remove them from the turntables.....there is also a slight chance of accidental damage? And finally........when I remove the headshells attached to the cartridges and interchange them and place them in their storage cases......there is an even greater chance of accidental dropping or damage incurred in that process. So I have not been able to overcome these practical fears and remove these damn (but useful) stylus guards? |
Dear Timeltel: For several years and till today there is no single cartridge that does not benefit when we take out its stylus guard. Your experiences with your 4000/D3 confirm about as the Ct0517 experience too. I think that today every one take out that stylus guard from every cartridge when on playback condition. This really works in favor of better quality performance level. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Regards, gentlemen: Thanks to all for your replies. It seems that I've a 4000 body of some description? If motors are the same, for all variations, then the cart can be accurately referred to as an Empire 4000? Equipped with the stylus, S-4000D/111 the cart would then be best identified as an Empire 4000 w/4000D/111 stylus? I can live with that. (Henry, I'm working on the ?'s) Danny (Acman3), thanks for the Lenco Heaven link, filled in some missing info, and a good piece of advice. On my somewhat well-damped EPA-250 arm, to move the arm with the queuing raised resulted in a sound like a cat clawing a screen. In the discussion of styli, the example I have (I believe you're familiar with it?) is Empire Scientific, Manuf. by Empire Scientific, long tapered cantilever, referred to in that thread as "silver" rather than "gold". By lowering the all-plastic swing down stylus protector to a midway position it can be easily removed, the cartridge is transformed. Hfs more to the front and bass is tauter. Vocal glottals/gutturals are delivered with accuracy & the sometimes difficult to accurately capture "Sweet Baby James" is a delightful listen. And thank you, Raul, for your encouragement regarding the cart. A very happy camper here! Peace, |
This extremely hard/rigid material and construction isolating the generator would tend to transmit even more mechanical energy to the arm, I would think. Transmission of vibrations to the arm is a widely accepted phenomenon.If there is any energy transmitted from the cartridge to the arm.....then that is information lost. In fact.....if any energy escapes the stylus/cantilever/magnet/coil/pole pieces motor assembly and enters the cartridge body.....it must be information lost IMHO? Can you explain how this may not be the case? Regards |
Halcro, **If there is any "vibrational energy" transmitted from the cartridge......I would suggest you have more serious problems than 'resonance'?** There's always vibrational energy at/from the cartridge. It's mechanical movements of the cantilever that trigger the electrical output of the generator. Those movements are severe, considering how the body is suspended and the weight stabilizing the tracking system. Hence the use of constrained layer damping coupling systems or exotic materials and/or potting used to isolate. New offerings like the Ortofon Anna or Lyra Atlas use titanium bodies and vibrational analysis to optimize performance. This extremely hard/rigid material and construction isolating the generator would tend to transmit even more mechanical energy to the arm, I would think. Transmission of vibrations to the arm is a widely accepted phenomenon. Regards, |
Hi Frogman, **I have always felt that the notion that an audio component can be "over damped" is a bit curious. I don't believe that it is possible for an audio component to be "over damped"; in absolute terms.** Over damped, in this case refers to a mechanical situation that negatively impacts transient response. A resonance circuit usually refers to an LC or LCR electrical circuit. Interaction with mechanical resonance certainly is what we're talking about. Specifically, the vibrational energy transmitted from the cart and resonance of the arm that effects the electrical output. Dissipation of mechanical energy is an attempt to drain it and convert it to heat minimizing affect on electrical output. Arm resonance that shows up in the output is best eliminated if possible IMO. Regards, |
Hi Chris, Yes, one of them is the LAC. My other one, with the black back plate is not the Gold however but the older clip fixed version. I believe these three are the only 4000D/III models but I have never owned or heard the Gold version. I would of course hope to have the opportunity of comparing all three versions at some future point. As always... |
Dear Fleib/Halcro: I'm following your " talking " and IMHO there is no single answer that's right to the whole subject. I agree with both of you in different ways. I think and support that everything we hear through our each one system can be measured, problem is to know exactly what and where to measure for the measured results can have a direct relationship with what we hear. T&his IMHO is very complex starting for so many parameters/factors involved because we need " references " under absolutely control of what we can hear, those references are something as: LP tracks that we dominate, system resolution, system neutrality, skills and tools to make those measurements, our each one ears frequency response habilities, our each one sound bias and I can go on and on. Of course all that can do it but is a hard task. We need to evaluate first which is our each one perception level on: THD, IMD, noise, tracking distortion and the like. Each one of us have different " experienced ears/brain " on those kind of " resonances/distortions ", even some of us can't distinguihs in between because some of us were not trained about. I'm absolutely sure that as best each one of us are trained overall on those whole subjects as better the direct relationship on what we hear against those measurements. Fleib, as always theories must to be proved because with out facts we can only speculate and in some ways is or could be useless. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Henry, To become lyrical by provocation looks strange but if one is already romantic by nature then there are no bondaries to one's imagination. I am not blind while the Dutch girls are the opposite of their 'flat country'. It is a multicultural nation with all imaginable 'colours' but I feel sad when thinking as a realist... There is however some comfort in all those carts, tonearms, etc. 'gear' which prevent me to become nostalgic in the worst possible way: the Slavic kind. But there is, it seems, a very good and luxury asylum in my neighbourhood. The nature can be known but not defeated. That is btw why the humor, even the Balkan kind, is indispensable. Regards, |
Dear Timeltel: The original 4000 D3 stylus description is: " miniature nude diamond with .1 mil tracing radius " 4 Dimensional ". " and with this cartridge the back plate is black, I own two of these cartridges. The white back plate is the one with LAC stylus and is a newest " model/vintage " than the original. Empire LAC stylus was used on that D3 and further on the newer models as the 600 LAC and 750 Limited. The latest D3 encarnation is the Gold one. Obviously all three models performs different and at least with my D3 sample I can't say is euphonic one, yes it is not an universal cartridge that performs the same on any tonearm but when well matched seems to me is near neutral. Set up is critical as with any other cartridge. Anyway, in your cartridge sample: how can you know that the stylus is the LAC one and not the original one?. Empire did so many changes through the time that is difficult to identify for sure about, even exist OEM ( " original " ) D3 stylus replacement but the question could be the same: LAC or original one? I think that do that the cartridge motor was still the same the sound signature of the cartridge is near the same. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nikola, I cannot believe that a fine Balkan who is educated and civilised and resides in a truly flat landscape cannot imagine admiring a beautiful redhead passing in the street and a moment later.......swivelling at the stunning sultry brunette who walks by? Only to later....at lunch......gaze wistfully into the eyes of a ravishing blonde beauty across the table? You see here....Downunder......beauty is not exclusive and unitary. That is why the Professor and I regularly rotate our collection of cartridges. So much beauty......so little time? Regards |
It appears there are different versions of this Empire 4000 DIII cart. Mine looks similar in construction to Henry’s Desmond yours looks like this Similar to Rauls I am not a cartridge expert like u guys, but looking at the two different body styles here metallic frame versus solid plastic tells me they will “definitely” resonant differently ? meaning different sounds. I will add that my stylus shaft has been super glued to the body for some time now and I do not use the guard as it resonants too. The sound became less diffused when I super glued it. Closer to my MC in detail but retained the Empire MM midrange. After this post and those links I feel like a I need more than my coffee right now. What an archaic system ! |
Dear Henry, I understand that a cart can sound euphonic while the owner can be euphoric about the cart. Your euphoria is however not convincing. There is too much euphoria to be true: FR-7, FR-5, 4000 d/III, Virtuoso with the pressure fitted nude (diamond) line contact, etc.,etc.. Is btw the concept 'fidelity' unknown in Australia? Then there are also rankings, valuations or comparison which should result in something called 'the best'. But, say: 'John is the tallest guy in the class and Peter is even taller' can't be, say, logicaly correct. Regards, |
Timeltel, You can see a picture of my type of model at: http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://otokazerobo.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2008/11/empire-4000diii.html&ei=SBHHT7amKqTS0QWF-by8Dw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CH0Q7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dempire%2B4000diii%2Blac%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADRA_enGB457GB457%26prmd%3Dimvns |
Timeltel, Your description matches my 4000d/III LAC model- right down to the scuffed lettering. The end with the cartridge pins has white plastic squares with the red, green, white and blue dots on them. Everything else is gold except the stylus, which is as described by Halcro. Hope that helps or offers some comfort. As always... |
Regards Professor, My cartridges both have a gold body with an integral black coloured attachment base which could be metal or even plastic as it is on the 1000ZE/X. On the side of the gold body is black printing (half of which has disappeared).....4000DIII/GOLD. The stylus assembly is white plastic with the stylus guard having the lettering in gold bas-relief...EMPIRE with I underneath. Is that any help? Regards |
Regards, 4000D/111 owners: Bought locally & assured that although the markings are scuffed it's a 4000D/111 cart. It seems everyone else has the solid mount, this one is on a clip-on metal mount, white back plate. Have I been had? No issues with the stylus, came in original "Genuine Empire discrete 4 channel, Tip radius 4 dimensional" packaging. Whatever the cart's DNA may be, euphoric is a good description of it's performance. Please advise. Peace, |
You're right Chris......the 4000D/III is hard to upset. I have two of them.......one in permanent attachment to my Copperhead whilst the other resides in an FR-3 headshell able to be inserted into the FR-66s or FR-64s at a moments notice. By listening side by side to it on the Copperhead and FR-66s on the Raven AC-2......the one in the FR-66s sounds happy and content whilst that in the Copperhead sounds even happier....euphoric even :-) When I first listened to my FR-5E MM cartridge (on J. Carr's recommendation and Nandric's help in finding it).....it sounded positively euphonic though not quite euphoric? I discovered that the two piece plastic mounting base to the cartridge was moving thus accounting for the euphonics. A quick dab of glue restored this fine cartridge to a state of euphoria without the extra euphonics. So I know exactly what you mean? Cheers Henry |
For some reason beyond conventional wisdom.......both Thuchan and I have found that the Empire 4000D/III really loves a high mass arm like the FR-66s and sounds positively euphoric in my Continuum Copperhead. Henry – according to this thread the 4000d/iii loves many arms. I assume by euphoric you are referring to a sound that is well ...kinda nice….dreamlike….like you feel maybe after a couple glasses of Nikola’s Sliwowitz? If so I also experienced this euphoric sound temporarily with the empire 4000 diii on my Dynavector Dv505 on the Lenco. I looked into it because it never sounded like that before. I admit I kind of liked at first, but then realized that for me it was a bit over the top, even for reproduced sound. I discovered the resonator had come loose on the Dv505. Not sure if that was the only problem but once adjusted and tightened things went back to normal. |
I have always felt that the notion that an audio component can be "over damped" is a bit curious. I don't believe that it is possible for an audio component to be "over damped"; in absolute terms. I realize that we have to live in the real world of still very imperfect audio components, and that we need to "manage" and even exploit the various resonances introduced by every component, and every part of every component in our audio system. I think Raul has it exactly correct in referring to this issue in terms of a "resonator circuit". While I admit that my point is purely academic, I think it is of value to always remember that audio components are not musical instruments, and that if the goal of audio is to reproduce as faithfully as possible the incredibly complex sonic signatures of these instruments' own "resonator circuits" (similar mechanical resonance interactions occur in musical instruments), then the very best, and unachievable reproduced sound is possible only by eliminating resonance in our audio systems. Very frustrating, since the best we can do is manipulate these various resonances. |
Perhaps you could work with the coupling and eliminate it or reduce it, and see/hear if it sounds any different.Hi Fleib, Isn't that precisely what I do every day by listening to a rigid tonearm with fixed headshell (DaVinci) and a rigid (structurally the MOST rigid) tonearm with no headshell whatsoever (Copperhead) alongside the four other tonearms with detachable headshells? Perhaps you should try this listening test to see which works better? Regards |
Hi Halcro, **I think you are missing my point here Fleib.......if I cannot hear the effects of this 'resonance' you are measuring compared directly to my tonearms with fixed headshells......why do you assume it is important or even more illuminating.....why do you assume it is 'bad' rather than 'good'?** I didn't measure the resonance and I didn't make those assumptions except its possible importance. An arm resonance is identified and attributed to the headshell. Should we ignore it? Lets devise an elaborate subjective test with 12 arms etc etc. This is really no different than what you do all the time and you haven't been able to identify it. So it doesn't exist or is unimportant if you can't hear it? How do you know you can't hear it, do all those arms sound alike? Why don't you measure the output and identify it? Perhaps you could work with the coupling and eliminate it or reduce it, and see/hear if it sounds any different. Our subjective impressions might be the final arbiter, but progress is made by using measurements and learning what works or works better. Regards, |
Regards, Danny: Initally mounted on an ADC mag. shell, spotlight was a little too heavy on the lower mids. Moved the Empire to a Yokohama HS3 8.5gm boxwood headshell & fat AT twisted copper leads and thought this put things in better order, even though I am a confessed midrange gourmand. Sounds very nice. Sometime in the future will try it on alu., carbon fiber and one of Henry's 9.5gm ebony headshells, I suspect greater mass may challenge the cart's high compliance. I appreciate the rich tonality and dynamics of the cart as set up now. If "listenability" could be measured I'd give this one high marks. Moving magnet generators are either over, under or critically damped, the same for mechanical considerations. In the strictest interpretation of your question, no, overdamping will not improve the performance of the cart and always keep in mind that for every action there is an equal and opposite criticism. Was not aware there was a solid mount version of the 4000D and I'm somehow distressed to hear that there is as now I'll be looking for yet another cart. The back plate for the pins-out on yours is white? Any impressions of your Grace F-8(E?) yet? Peace, |
Hello Timeltel, As a side note to your ideas, I can thump on my Empire 4000d 111 Gold and it doesn't make a sound. It has the more normal 1/2" mount of plastic instead of the metal wings of the original 4000d111. If I remember correctly, and Raul do correct me if I'm wrong, Raul preferred the older microphonic cart to the newer dampened cartridge, when comparing the two. Do the improvements to the cartridge mounting actually hurt it"s sound by overdamping? |
I also agree with Raul on these issues. ...but isn't a resonance that shows up in the electrical output on test equipment, more scientific than people listening on an unfamiliar system and being put on the spot?'Scientific' would include controlled testing using a dozen different arms of differing shapes and materials, with a dozen different headshells with all testing repeated many times? It would need to monitor the torque values used with the headshell locking collars and also test with and without the rubber gaskets between the collars and the tonearms. Different rubber gaskets would also have to be tested? After all that......we need to ask ourselves.....'Is this a more fundamental influence on perceived sound than the tonearm material?".....or the tonearm bearing?......or the fixity of the tonearm base?...or the rigidity of the cartridge to headshell connection? Should we not 'scientifically' test all these at the same time? And then how do we establish the hierarchy of 'importance' with all these tests? I think you are missing my point here Fleib.......if I cannot hear the effects of this 'resonance' you are measuring compared directly to my tonearms with fixed headshells......why do you assume it is important or even more illuminating.....why do you assume it is 'bad' rather than 'good'? If scientific testing determined our choices in audio......all valve equipment would be relegated to the dustbin of history? Oh.....and all my headshells are occupied with cartridges. That is their sole purpose....not for tuning :-) Regards |
I'll fabricate for my Trans-Fi linear tonearm a two-point vertical needle bearing assembly that plugs directly into a standard SME headshell bayonet-- eliminating the tonearm tube entirely. This can be compared to several short wands of various compositions with integral headshells. This takes all variables out of the equation except for the extra mechanical joint and solder/clip terminations. The same wire will be used throughout the arm and the headshell. Is an old-stock Technics bayonet good enough to prove the point, or is there a better bayonet out there to extract optimal performance from a removeable headshell? |
Hi Halcro, **I’m not a great proponent of blind listening tests either…..however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner? If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own? It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true?** I see your point, but isn't a resonance that shows up in the electrical output on test equipment, more scientific than people listening on an unfamiliar system and being put on the spot? On the one hand it's hard to argue with an oscilloscope or RTA, whatever, on the other hand we really don't know if this is a universal attribute of all removable headshell systems. I think perhaps it is, at least to some extent. We often hear these things and don't identify exactly what they are, or the cause; nevertheless we would select the headshell and tweak the mounting system to achieve the sound we are looking for. Do you have an extensive headshell collection? Why, exactly is it necessary, perhaps to tune an imperfect system? Don't take that as an insult or proclamation of superiority, nothing's perfect. Regards, |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner? If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own? It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true? " +++++++ that's why many times is only theory but as I posted ( btw, I posted by 05-27-12 and because Agon does not posted I repeat it on 05-28. Something is happen there because if you read it is only today that Agon posted my post to Audiopulse that I writed and posted by 05-25-12!!! and to Dover on 05-26-12 ) the problem is that many times we are taking single theories for a single subject when as I pointed out the whole " thing " works as a resonator circuit where each stage on that resonator circuit has a direct and indirect relationship in between: any change in any of those stages ( inside the resonator circuit ) affect directly to the final " sound ". It is " fun " for all of us to talk on this subject but our conclusions could be useless in some ways if we don't take or work on the whole resonator circuit. IMHO our conclusions are " unfinished " ones and extremely difficult to prove it as you said. IMHO we must to have a " mathematic's model " of that resonator circuit where all the parameters/factor with influence been on that model. This sounds good but I think very complex if we take in count all the parameters/factors invloved and its combinations because that model must include audio item build materials. Whom's of us say: I take that " bull by its horns " ?. Here we have very brave contributors that can do it and that maybe as a " contribution task " some of this brave stand alone contributors can works togetter to achieve that resonator circuit model. I'm just thinking in " high voice ". regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Nandric, My Reed has the optional azimuth adjustable headshell. My inspection of it suggests to me that it is firmly imbedded into the wood arm wand, not just one fastener. Thus the mechanical interface between it and the wood seems to be a bit better engineered than that for some other wood arms. However, the azimuth device itself is perhaps suspect as regards its possible tendency to resonate. Dover, AJ Conti is not alone. Effective mass is proportional to mass times the SQUARE of the distance from the center of mass to the pivot point. Thus, getting a larger mass counterweight closer to the pivot point will generally REDUCE effective mass vs a lighter weight mass that has to be farther away from the pivot point in order to balance the cartridge. It's the law. Modern tonearm designers tend to obey it; the older especially Japanese tonearms tended to ignore it. |
Dear Fleib, Agreed…..we do have a basic problem. I’m not a great proponent of blind listening tests either…..however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner? If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own? It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true? I have the luxury of having two turntables operating side by side with three different arms on each…….two with fixed headshells and four with detachable. If I cannot tell the difference in any way between those arms……how accurate and reliable is such a statement? I don’t mind what anyone believes is contributing to their system’s synergy or success as long as they don’t claim some universal laws which they cannot prove and which I have personally disproved? I can believe the passion of those advocates of valve amplification…..but it does not negate the merits of solid state? As someone once wrote……”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Regards |
Hello Henry, I'm afraid we still have a basic problem. Blind listening tests on unfamiliar systems are near useless for anything but gross differences. Despite our references to live music, most systems fall far short and hi-fi stereo listening is a medium unto itself, mimicking that of live music and "exceeding" it in certain areas. I've conducted blind tests. Depending on what the test is about, I could pretty much make them come out any way I wanted, with careful selection of components. Using test instruments is sometimes a useful way of identifying what's going on and training our ears to discern. All of us try various things to get a more accurate or pleasing sound. If there is a mechanical resonance impacting the electrical output, we automatically take appropriate action depending on our opinion of the affect. However, being locked into one approach would tend to limit our ability to identify coloration and consider a different approach. The S and J shaped arms were developed to incorporate offset angle into the headshell and maintain a more rigid (straight) coupling. So, this brings up the questions, is it better if using a removable headshell and, is it better vs a fixed headshell? Back to square 1. Regards, |