the exchanging of headshells is of some value, but that's a personal opinion. And it's an honest opinion...... Trying to justify 'opinion' by speculation or invoking 'voodoo' science is annoying IMO. Now there may well be some reasoned thought behind all these 'theories' on energy transmission and vibration but it doesn't make them right? Nor does it establish a hierarchy of 'importance' in the actual design and function of tonearms and headshells? I think Fleib answered his own question....can we actually HEAR it? There are so many honourable convictions in audio....especially when it comes to analogue? Sprung turntables vs rigid.....heavy vs not so......vacuum hold-down vs none....clamps vs none....belt-drive vs DD vs Idler. High mass tonearms vs medium......uni-pivots vs gimbal bearings.....fixed headshells vs removable......straight arms vs 'J' or 'S' shaped....single length phono-cable vs junction box. White papers can be produced on these....and many others.....which 'prove' the theoretical superiority of someone's conviction? But can it actually be PROVEN in the listening? Can we actually hear the evidence of these theories?....and I don't mean have each one of us proven to himself, the best direction for his audio choices? I mean.....in a blind listening test on an unknown system.......who is willing to bet they can hear the difference between a uni-pivot and a gimbal bearing tonearm? Who can tell the difference between a fixed headshell tonearm and a removable headshell one? Who is willing to bet they can hear whether there is vacuum hold-down or not?...whether a clamp is used or not?...whether the turntable they are listening to is belt driven of DD? And has anyone ever seen a blind listening test where any listener is able to verify whether a MM cartridge or MC is playing on a consistent basis? Yes...theories are the beautiful minutiae of audio....but a 'single' theory is rarely its own reward? And no more '?s' for you Professor until you learn to use them with the abandon of a non-academic like me! Regards Henry |
Timeltel -
Perhaps Henry could denude the Empire for you ?.h?
When I was working at a medical company a few years ago they were working on fusing carbon fibre & titanium for use in wheelchairs - now that would be interesting for a tonearm beam. |
Regards, Lew, Fleib. And with your forbearance, Dover, an elaboration of your comments and an open question: Good points by all. Couple of joins not yet discussed, one where the cart meets the headshell, of whatever description it may be, it does exist. The second, the pivot, or gimbal. Then there's the interface of post to base, some say all the way to the spindle and ultimately, on perhaps a YORX turntable, returning to the vinyl.
And all those boundary resonances with their sly phase shifts and ringing.
Boundary conditions do effect the resonance frequency. The resonance frequency is influenced by Young's modulus, and geometry. It gives me a headache to think about such but the resonance characteristics of a beam are determined by: 1. Young's modulus, 2. The cross-section of the beam 3. The mass per length 4. The associated eigenvalue, or the self-resonance of the beam as described by the preceding factors. This seems inevitable when the beam of a tonearm is made rigid, this is generally considered a good thing.
In the case of resonance in a beam, there is a probability that not just the primary tone but also the second and third overtones are also excited. Measures to correct this are selection of the material itself, damping of the tube by external or internal applications such as sand, blue tack or teflon tape, by tapering or curving the beam, by sleeving the beam in order to interrupt linear resonance through the entire length, silicone damping, the list can get pretty long.
In a Jan. 2004 paper delivered by Xinqi Chen, Sulin Zhang, Gregory J. Wagner, (and Weiqiang Ding, and Rodney S. Ruoff),
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, this is described:
"Variation in cross section was taken into account by using a modified expression for the natural frequency based on a perturbation solution in the small parameter e (eigenvalue)=(D1-D0)/D0 , where D0 is the diameter at the fixed end of the vibrating rod and D1 is the diameter at the free end. The cross-sectional area and moment of inertia as functions of the length of the beam are then given." In plain language, overtone resonance was found to depend on the ratio of --- length to (a tapered) cross-section diameter. Thank you, gentlemen.
Then there's this worrisome bit: "the shift in frequency is *negative* for the fundamental mode due to --- increase of mass, but *positive* for the higher modes (2nd, 3rd 4th overtones), for which increased stiffness dominates over the increased mass." My thinking cap for that one, please?
It needs to be clarified that these fellows were concerned with the behavior of fibers, but clearly felt (quote) "If there are ‘‘problems’’ associated with microscale samples, it is likely that the same sorts of issues will arise with nanoscale samples." Coming from the scientific community, this is a fairly assertive statement but one can, naturally, draw one's own conclusions.
This is presuming a "perfectly clamped beam". In a beam which is damped, then boundary effects are to some degree deflected because, as Fleib points out, by the laws of conservation of energy vibration is then transformed into heat.
In the instance of a tonearm, it is neither perfectly clamped or perfectly free. Beyond theory and when put into practice, this means it is best that a number of samples be measured in order to determine the most appropriate set of values. Then there's cantilever resonance, cartridge self resonance (eigenvalue again), damping through suspension or tie wire, underdamping/overdamping of the electrical kind---.
It is, for me, all very complicated but unless one has had the good fortune to own a tonearm and cartridge perfectly matched and also perfectly meeting the listener's expectations then the ability to select appropriate mass, material and cross section through the exchanging of headshells is of some value, but that's a personal opinion.
AND---
Neither supposition or proposition, just the promised question: Being fairly aware of the points in making a case for damping and line transmission of resonance to the mass of the plinth in it's function as a vibrational sink, this does seem the best supported approach. However, as there are a number of evidently microphonic cartridges that have sneaked into the ranks of well regarded pickups, even a gentle touch of the Empire 4000D-111 is to be heard through the speakers and there aren't many complaints about that particularly dynamic cartridge. Is it possible that tuned mechanical feedback is an intentional component of design?
(Henry loaned me several "?'s", he cranks them out by the hundreds & will never miss these few). ;)
Peace, |
Hi Dover, that sounds reasonable to me. I think much of it depends on the materials and execution. **At any junction or join some energy will transmit through and some will reflect backwards towards the cartridge. Therefore no join ensures no backward reflected energy towards the cartridge.** It also would ensure maximum rigidity and tend to eliminate additional resonance problems caused by a joint. It seems like a good case against removable headshells.
In the real world it seems like best performance often comes from a combination of dissipation and damping. If you have a rigid pivot(s) wouldn't considerations be somewhat different with strings or a golf ball suspended in silicone? Rather than forcing the cart to follow a rigid pivot 9 to 12" away, you're putting the cart before the pivot and making the arm follow the cartridge. On the other hand, VTA adjusters that have the arm pillar only sitting on spikes are said to have lots of extra bass. No wonder, the arm isn't coupled, it's decoupled.
Think I'll play a Memorial Day record. Lee Morgan vol 3, I Remember Clifford is on there - Blue Note 1557. I'll have to dig out a Benny Golson rendition too. What the hey, he wrote the tune.
Regards, |
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.
The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:
I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque.
Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.
All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.
So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.
What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.
The analog " cross/croix " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it.
I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date.
Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music,
R. |
Fleib,
There are 2 schools of thought here - the wooden spoon and string brigade are trying to dampen energy, others such as Naim Aro, Dynavector are trying to encourage energy away from the cartridge and sink it to ground through the arm/armboard/plinth.
At any junction or join some energy will transmit through and some will reflect backwards towards the cartridge. Therefore no join ensures no backward reflected energy towards the cartridge.
Now if we have a join whats best ? There are probably 3 main types - bayonet, screw and clamp. The most rigid is the clamp eg Triplanar arm tube yoke effectively creating a wider pressure than either a bayonet or screw. This will be more rigid, but presumably will spread the resonance out over a wider range but with less amplitude. Materials used will also have a big impact on how energy moves/reflects, from my rusty memory if each succeeding material away from the cartridge is "quicker" than the preceding material, then that will minimise the reflected energy going back toward the cartridge. |
Effective mass and moment of inertia seem to be expressions of the same thing. Using a heavier counterweight closer to the pivot will reduce eff mass. Calculating MOI includes distance.
Lew, can't say I completely understand it or can do the math. Energy propagation gets into mechanical impedance. Vibrations travel both ways. There are other forms of mechanical energy like sound pressure waves that impact on the table/arm. I think you might find these interesting:
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/pierre_lurne_audiomecas_turntable_designer/index.html
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/belladonna2_e.html
Regards, |
According to AJ Conti changing to a heavier counterweight closer to the pivot point will lower the effective mass - it is counterintuitive. To increase EM you need to split the counterweight into multiples and distribute some weight further back behind the main counterweight. The maths becomes a nightmare. In some cases depending on where the original counterweight ends up you may in fact still end up with a lower EM putting additional weight behind the main. Therefore I prefer to start with an arm that is in the zone to start with. I did consider getting a Triplanar made to order with a higher effective mass, but put that in the too hard basket. |
Dear Lew, Re Fleib. Your Reed 2A headshell is fastened with just one screw so you can experiment before the math and physical theory are provided. However the Germans have this proverb:' if theory and practice conicide then they are probable both false'.
Regards, |
Dover,
Why not just add a weight, if that was your only objection to the TP? One can easily increase the effective mass of any tonearm, not easy to go in the other direction. I agree with you that "medium mass" tonearms are neither here nor there when it comes to matching with high and low compliance cartridges.
I was not necessarily touting the supremacy of the TP over all others; I was just pointing out that it seems to be well engineered as regards energy transfer. As to the goodness of wood for tonearm construction, Vetterone, whom I highly respect, has written on one of these threads in no uncertain terms that wood is superior to metal in terms of dissipating energy. Far be it from me to challenge him on that notion, but I did mean to point out that some of the most expensive wood tonearms may not be so good at getting the energy from the cartridge body and into the wood part of the tonearm, due to all the material interfaces the energy must traverse. That said, my one experience listening to a Talea with a ZYX UNIverse, in a system that was very familiar to me, was an epiphany; the pairing sounded absolutely great.
Fleib, Do you really think that's true, about one screw (or one fastener of some kind) being advantageous? It's an interesting idea. I'd like to see the math or some supportive physical theory. |
Lewm, I think you've highlighted the folly of fashion - wooden arms and tonearm's hanging on a string. These are literally TONE arms, as in tone controls, providing little rigidity to ensure the stylus is measuring the groove modulations accurately. Images of a log randomly floating down a river as a little boy valiantly tries to steer the log from the rear come to mind when string arms are mentioned, eg Well Tempered, Schroeder. If that floats your boat, well and good. The main benefit of these types of arms is that they can sound warm, cuddly, vague, not too detailed to upset the system and can smooth over system imbalances and poor set up. To include these types of arms in a discussion on headshell/tonearm rigidity is spurious.
I do like the engineering of the Triplanar and ability to set up the cartrudge very accurately and easily, but I think one of the issues, and why I rejected it, is that the effective mass of 11g is a bit on the low side for the low compliance LOMC's that I use. |
I think I forgot at least one resonance circuit stage: where the TT is seated.
R. |
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.
The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:
I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque.
Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.
All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.
So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.
What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.
The analog " cross " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Lew, all those points could be valid depending on the individual design. I think wood would tend to dampen and not efficiently transmit. On the other hand a single connection between a headshell plate and arm, could be beneficial for energy dissipation. Energy could have one clear path to travel from plate to arm tube. I base much of this on the work of Pierre Lurne. There are several interviews on the web. Over the yrs his principals seem to work for me. BTW, he has a degree in physics.
The question arises of how much of this is practical, audible, or just theoretical. I would say, it depends. I think a flexing or resonance just behind the headshell only complicates things and would tend to compromise performance.
Regards, |
Dear Lewm: Only that people like more the resonances/distortions on the new " toys ", that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Fleib, I respect your opinion regarding headshells. However, have you ever taken a good look at the construction of some of the modern very highly regarded tonearms that do not allow for interchangeable headshells? Many of them, especially the wood ones, use a separate piece of brass or other metal as a fixing point for mounting the cartridge. Those metal pieces do not allow for a good contact surface between cartridge and mount and so cannot possibly be very efficient at draining resonant energy from the cartridge. Many of those same products also then affix the mount piece to the wood arm wand by a single fastener, usually a screw. Thus the contact between the metal piece and the wood seems insufficient to effect an efficient transfer of energy, also. This causes me some consternation, why I have not yet bought in to the mystique. To wit, take a look at a Talea or a Schroeder. My point is that the need to drain energy from the cartridge body seems to have taken a back seat in many cases among designers of modern fixed-shell tonearms, many of which are widely revered. In contrast, I would point out the structural superiority of the Triplanar; Herb Papier used to expound on the necessity for a firm grip of cartridge to headshell and of headshell to arm wand, and he was true to his ideal in building the TP. Yet, as we know, the TP is no longer the darling of the high-end set, having been supplanted to a large degree by Talea, Schroeder, et al. I don't know whether this is an example of elitism among the high end set or of adherence to a theory of energy transfer that is maybe not so important in real life, on your part and mine. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi David and folk, Thanks for your posts David.
Re: have your cake and eat it too.
If you get a resonance at 250Hz or close, that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube. "Good" arms are designed to dissipate energy. Vibrations travel down the armtube and are met with a body of weight - the counterweight or arm pillar. Hopefully, it's not sent back to the cart. That mass will convert the vibrations to heat or it travels down the pillar. [Touch a vibrating tuning fork to a block of granite.] Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy.
There are different kinds of resonance, but any resonance that shows up in the audible band is a problem. At carts primary high freq resonance there is a 180ᵒ phase shift. This phase anomaly extends at least 2 octaves (usually) and into the audible band, often more. This effects imaging and coherence. Most carts have a naturally rising high end that is controlled by damping. Ironically, the damping is the cause of extended phase shift. I'm not sure how other damping effects phase, but any additional resonance can only be beneficial as complimentary coloration. Like using high mass/MOI arms and compensating with 100K load, it's the wrong approach IMO. Reports of carts at wild angles confirms that.
Regards, |
Dear Dover: +++++ " there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology " " ++++++
todays " technology " means: better cartridge/headshell wires, better wire connectors, better headshells and the posibility to choose the best match, etc, etc.
I think that maybe I don't make very precise my point: there is no generalization on that subject it is only on vintage samples against the stand alone vintage same model mounted with today " technology ".
About that additional joint to the tonearm in my case and as many other people we use direct wire/cable connection from the cartridge pin connectors to the Phonolinepreamp.
I posted:
+++++" Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell. " +++++
all this are advantages to the stand alone cartridge models due that help to attain the best that vintage cartridge can shows us.
++++++ " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions. " ++++
The theory behind that " rigidity " you bring on the subject maybe is more theory than a reality because if we can't hear it it is hard to know helps to detriment on sound quality. I made several experiments about with some of my tonearms: MS and Audiocraft and with my own tonearm self design and I can't say that rigidity makes a difference for the better.
Anyway, only an opinion/experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Regards, Dlaloum: Apologies for yesterdays hurried post, the reference was, as you surmised, measuring tip mass through resonance without taking into consideration material used in cantilever construction. Your posts are always informed and substantiated. The reply was intended as comment, not criticism. Please don't think it's presumed you're unaware of resonance qualities of differing materials. Mea culpa.
Your post did open the door to a different matter, I should have addressed the forum rather than "Dlaloum". Allow me the opportunity to remove my foot from my mouth and instead step into that opened door. :)
Regards, all: In the past, a cartridge exhibiting any discernible degree of microphonics was personally disregarded. Detail retrieval and transient behavior has been a focus, these others have been viewed as colored or euphoric but just why have so many of these been considered among the best of the breed? Those I have with stamped metal mounts, plastic or clip mounts such as the Empire 1000 Z/EX. Pickering XLZ/4500S, XV-15/D750, Phase 4 (interesting 4 coil design), Stant. 500E-11 (2 coil), Grace F-9 & L, even the entry level Signet TK(x) & TK(x)a carts are in this "microphonic" category. Another, the Empire 4000D-111, hit the vinyl with remarkable results, even though not yet run-in. Reportedly, the well thought of 881S & XSV 3000 are also microphonic.
Six turntables, seven arms (three of which are interchangeable on two TT's), 25+ headshells and 50+ carts results in nearly 14,000 possibilities, not involving the miriad of compatible stylus exchanges. Giving it some thought, here's what seems to be going on.
An electric current will be induced in any closed circuit when the magnetic flux through a surface bounded by the conductor changes, whether the field itself changes in strength or the conductor is moved through it. Vibration modulates the magnetic flux linking the coil, thereby inducing an alternating current through the coil. Some high-output pickups employ very strong magnets, thus creating more flux and thereby more output. This can be detrimental to the final sound because the magnet's pull on the core can cause problems with intonation as well as damp the cantilever and reduce sustain. High-output cartridges have more turns of wire to increase the voltage generated by the cantilever's movement, this also increases the pickup's output resistance/impedance, which can affect high frequencies. Moving tip mass is another factor.
A cartridge doesn't care where it's signal originates. In the case where there is a mismatch of cartridge compliance/TA eff. mass or if the cartridge is not isolated by a buffer of some description, then tonearm, plinth, turntable, headshell or acoustic resonance is returned to the cartridge. The relevant amplification factor depends on the shape, material and mass of the article through which the resonance moves and it's commonly recognized that by adjusting its characteristic properties one may optimize the response of the system. The appearance of resonance is common for systems and isolation, damping and noise play an prominent role. This constitutes an important consideration in the characterization of these systems and can put to use for *controlling their basic properties*. Hmmm.
When considering resonance, four factors are taken into consideration. These are:
1. wavelength 2. plain wave propagation 3. reflection 4. phase matching.
Destructive resonance occurs when waves interfere with each other, A+B=0. In a situation in which constructive resonance, or constructive interference exists, A+B=AB, this is a condition in which enhanced resonance is observed. Resonance, depending on the degree the cartridge or tonearm is damped or performs as a vibrational sink (open or closed system) may to some degree be either in phase or not. From a listener's perspective, with corrective loading styli assemblies from the relatively well-damped and neutral AT & Shure carts can be exchanged with relative impunity. Stanton/Pickering carts seem to be much more resonant tuned. Phase anomalies are audible with such exchanges, do so with trepidation.
Martin Collums reviewed cartridges, tonearms and turntables in his 1977 book, "Hi-Fi Choice Turntables and Cartridges". Raul provided a link to a table listing those cartridges reviewed, unfortunately I've lost the link to the Vinyl Engine file but there were a number of carts with high marks in the usual technical specs downgraded from his "Recommended" list on the criteria of "listenability".
Tube amplification and straight-through MOSFET (zero NFB) also have audible resonant characteristics. In the perpetual debate between accurate and musical, maybe a little "listenability" is a positive attribute?
"(and that wee little resonance can't be such a big deal can it ?!)"
Peace, |
Hello Lewm, The thought that Grace F9 and F8 cartridges were similar came from other peoples general observations on other forums. They would say something like" Why pay for a F9 when the F8 can be had cheap and is just as good".
I will go ahead and compare the two. I suspect you are correct in which I will be getting rid of. I am trying to thin out my crowded cartridge situation. It's like getting rid of a part of the family.
Thanks! |
Hi Dover,
for sure, but some of us want to have our cake and eat it too...
(and that wee little resonance can't be such a big deal can it ?!) |
And of course the most rigid joint, between headshell and tonearm, is that where none exists, ceteris paribus. |
Acman, This is by nature second-hand information, but nowhere have I ever read that F8 and F9 are similar, with respect to performance. Can you quote your source on that? If I owned both, I would listen to each and make my decision based on my own audition. IMO, you will not appreciably devalue your F9e by using it for a brief period. It is my further guess that you will then want to sell your F8 instead. |
Hi Timeltel,
I am not clear as to whether you are responding to my posting with regards to measuring ETM via primary resonance, or my second recent posting with regards to headshells and vibration...
Assuming it is the former:
The physics behind using the primary resonance to measure ETM are grounded in a couple of theories which may be problematic.
The most obvious of these is the vinyl indentation theory. - so the people that put together this measuring method, assumed vinyl indentation and then proceeded to measure (something) and derived the ETM formula from there.
There is also the competing theory that in fact the primary resonance is generated by cantilever flex, and the there is no vinyl indentation as the groove to needle relative speed is so high that there is insufficient time for the vinyl to indent. (with an interesting corollary that a line contact, makes contact only at a point and not on the entire line...)
Either way, the ETM calculation appears to be valid for all the Ortofon cartridges that I own, and matches the specifications published by Ortofon for those cartridges.
It also appears to work equally well for aluminium, and Boron cantilevers.
Due to the fact that the generation of the resonance involves physical parameters such as material density, mass, and structurally associated parameters such as the speed of sound in the material - specifically in the direction of the length of the cantilever (some materials like wood, have differing speed of sound in differing directions - along or against the grain).
Using the resonance as the measurement value quite simply wraps all these parameters into one measurement...
One could ask whether the ETM specification does indeed reflect actual tip mass - the answer is most likely it does not! - But it is a close relative, and although the nomenclature is flawed, its meaning in terms of impact on cartridge performance is quite clear.
Assuming the latter (my posting with regards to resonance related to flex at headshell joint):
I don't think material of the headshell and arm would have great direct influence on the resonance - as this is an outcome of the headshell mass, interacting via the rigidity (or lack thereof) of the connection point.
But the resonance may be partly damped by differing materials in the arm/headshell/cartridge.
However given the impact on tracking and seperation, I am not sure that differing materials would have a substantive impact - I think to impact on this resonance would require some improvement of the rigidity of the Join - hence my interest in twin pin headshells.
bye for now
David |
Integrated headshells - storm in a teacup.
Advantages - eliminates one mechanical connection if using a detachable headshell tonearm.
Disadvantages - can only align correctly if you are using the intended matching tonearm and alignment preferences. The integrated headshell will require a tonearm of very specific effective length, pivot to stylus distance and offset angle ( built into the J or S shape ) in order to be able to align it.
Example - Dynavector tonearms - if we assume for arguments sake that this arm is optimised for Stevenson, then for an integrated cartridge to work on this arm the stylus tip to arm distance must be precise enough to achieve the correct pivot to stylus distance and it can only be aligned to Stevenson.
To me the disadvantages are too large. As an Ikeda MC owner that has the choice of both integrated and non integrated I would choose the non integrated every time to give more tonearm and alignment options.
Raul - the issue is that you make sweeping generalisations - you imply that all integrated cartridges inferior to non integrated versions which is simply not correct. |
I have a Grace F8e and a F8L. I also have a NOS Grace F9e I have not used yet because I have read the Grace F8 and F9 were very similar, and I was thinking of selling the F9e
What are your opinions and experience with the Grace F 8 compared with the F 9? |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it.
I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date.
Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, You are using the expression 'foundation' in the sense of knowledge and facts. Ie those 'without foundation' in your parlance lack some knowledge or facts
which are ,according to you, needed as the 'ground' for
their statements. Well every science has its own 'foundations' which are teached to the first year students as 'introduction to..'. Then no reasoning is possible without some premisse (presupposition) which may be implicite (assumed as known) or made explicite. The logic is about 'deduction' from those premisses. The precondition is: if the premisse is true then the deduced statements MUST also be true. But if the premiss is not true no logic can help. Now all those 'premisses' can be called 'foundation' because our reasoning is based or grounded on them. Even such a simple statement as 'it rains
today' presuppose some basics about the weather.
What is then your contradiction? You first dismissed the integrated carts in general then Ortofon and EMT in particular. The last mentioned with a very strange argument: the Japanese peculiarity. Com' on. But you also stated to be, say, very impressed by (at least) FR-7.And now you are adding up. You are describing preconditions which need to satisfied in order to get an integrated cart able to beat the stand alone kind. Well you can't have it both ways.
BTW I have no idea why you count me in the camp of the advocate of integrated carts? I am on your side in this regard I but for the reason I already mentioned: they are impractical to me. I stated nothing about the performance comparison.
Regards, |
Regards, Dlaloum: Would this description take into consideration the different resonant characteristics, f. instance, a brass rod and a wooden dowel of equal mass (or equal dimension) would exhibit differing properties?
As resonances may be of a constructive or destructive nature, your post might be read as confirmation of one of the original tenants of this thread, that of the importance of matching cart/headshell/arm/loading (no comment on cables) and their impact on resonance, be it of the boundary, line, or self-resonance of stylus, cart, TA, plinth, headshell, acoustical & (it sometimes seems) ad infinitum? Why would one be surprised that a "monolithic" design would perform best on the TA it was designed to be supported by?
From another perspective this may be, for those who enjoy the different presentations of a variety of carts, a convincing argument for utilizing an arm offering changeability of headshells of differing mass or material.
Recently found a NOS stylus for Empire 4000D-111, then a stylusless cart for which tracking indicates delivery today. Pickering XV-15/D750 is singing very nicely on an ADC 6.5gm mag. headshell, with the flimsy mounting ears on the cart one would anticipate a degree of self-resonance returned to the stylus. The Empire has the same arrangement, hope it "resonates" with this listener as well as does the Pickering.
Heretical, ain't it?
Peace, |
On the topic of headshells ...
My observation and measurement of various cartridges on the JVC S-arm clearly shows up a resonance around 250Hz (varying a bit depending on headshell/cartridge) which appears to be related to the flex between arm tube and headshell.
This is of course to be expected!
The effect manifests in 2 ways: 1) a small but sharp peak in amplitude at the resonant frequency, and 2) a reduction in seperation and tracking ability at that same frequency
On the Revox - this resonance simply does not exist (not surprising as there is no headshell joint to flex!)
I currently do not own a twin pin headshell - which I would like to try out to see whether the firmer connection has an impact on the resonant peak and the tracking/seperation at that same point.
Personally I think that the integrated cartridges have some great advantages.
The ADC and Ortofon integrateds (HiFi versions not DJ) achieved substantially lower mass than can be achieved with a standard headshell (even if using a 6g headshell) - these were high compliance designs, and the very low mass integrated resulted in a substantially lowered effective arm mass - which allowed these cartridges to perform much better in typical arms of that type.
I believe the TOTL Stanton integrateds were also very well regarded although I know little about them.
I do have an AT24/25 but have yet to attempt the comparison... so far I have run this as a 1/2" mount setup.
Ultimately the integrated should IMO be considered as simply another headshell alternative - there is the potential for advantages generated by the design of the two together - but those related to vibration control/damping are so very dependent on other variables (such as the arm it is attached to) - that it is most likely extremely difficult to reliably determine an advantage one way or the other in this area.
Still a high quality integrated eliminates a couple of connection points, optimises effective mass, and often looks pretty cool at the same time.
I have nothing against them, and very much like the Ortofon, and ADC integrateds. (Jury still out on the AT)
bye for now
David |
Dear nandric/Lewm/Henry: All of you posted that I'm contradictory, well I appreciate that you were more specifics because maybe I did not understand yet in specific in which subjects I'm trhough your posts.
Now, if in true I'm contradictory I can and have to accept it after I can analize what moves me what brings me to been contradictory.
I'm willing as always to accept critics about my " foundations " except when one person post that I'm lying.
The integrated headshell cartridge design subject is controversial as many other audio subjects and my take there is only that the same vintage cartridge model in stand alone fashion outperforms its integrated counterpart.
In my " take " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions.
I had this kind of experiences in the old times, especialy with AT cartridges. Unfortunately in those times I owned a different system and more important I did not care about tonearm/headshell/cartridge matching.
One of the cartridges I owned were the AT24 and its integrated counterpart AT25 and I can't remember big differences on it because the AT24 was mated with AT headshell and AT wires.
The problem today is that in those vintage integrated designs we can't change nothing on the internal construction when its counterpart ( stand alone ) be mated with firt rate headshell wires and tested with several headshells till we find out the best match, the stand alone vintage cartridge design has many advantages over its integrated " sister ".
I would like to know if there are some contradictions here or why I'm wrong.
Yes, I have a strong foundation against integrated designs, I don't like its monolitic status: IMHO we all need and in specific the cartridge needs and ask for " alternatives " to shows at its best alternatives to be perfectly matched.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Hi Folks,
working my way through some late 60's Walton articles on measuring pickups, I came across the formula for calculating Effective Tip Mass.
This requires two important values: 1) Primary resonance frequency and 2) Vinyl compliance constant.
The first can be measured, but the 2nd needs to be known to calculate the ETM.
In a stroke of "doh" the other day, I realised I could calculate the vinyl constant from the published ETM figures of various Ortofon cartridges I own (Ortofon being one of the very few that still advertise ETM specs) - and measuring the primary resonance for those cartridges.
Effectively ETM is a mathematical restating of the resonant frequency - Formula is as follows:
ETM =((1/(ResF*2*3.14159)^2)/[1.16 x 10^(-10)])
I previously stated my belief that resonant frequency is critical to top performance, and this relationship appears to confirm it.
It also allows us to understand and compare a range of cartridges and their specifications in a different manner.
The Dynavector Karat 17's have res f at circa 70kHz which calculates to an ETM of circa 0.05g (around the same as the EPC100....)
The "lower end" Karat 23's have res f at circa 60kHz making ETM circa 0.1g.
Other interesting observations based on this:
SAS styli seem to be just under 0.3g
I need to measure the primary resonance of more of my stable of cartridges.... I have a strong feeling that this is a key indicator of performance.
Previously my focus was on higher res f to ensure minimised amplitude and phase impact on the audio frequencies - now I am realising that the res f is also a consequence of tip inertia, and therefore the high res f will also be an indicator of high mechanical dynamic ability. (it was sitting there all the time in front of my face... but it is different to know something and to "realise" it!)
Note: - this is of course completely divorced from whether a cartridge is MM or MC (or anything else!)
If in fact the greatest indicator (or at least one of the greates) of performance is res f / ETM then a large part of the entire MM vs MC discussion is a whopping Red Herring.
bye for now
David |
Dear Henry, We all respect Rául's opinions the problem is/are his 'foundations'. Some of them at least are contradictory. My prease for Lew's contribution in casu
is his irreproachable logic and beautiful prose.
Regards, |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " Dear nandric: I repeat, those integrated headshell designs were a fashion on those old times and in many ways more marketing that a scientific achievment.
Almost all the cartridge manufacturers of this kind of designs were tonearm manufacturers too: Technics, Audio Technica, FR/Ikeda, Yamaha, Sony, ADC, etc, etc.
Wonder where those integrated headshell designs performs the " better "?, you are right!: with its tonearm counterpart designed by the same cartridge manufacturer.
I owned several of those integrated headshell designs on those old times and I remember the USA distributors/sellers how they push to the integrated designs against its stand alone brothers, curios was that normally first appears the stand alone one and suddenly after that the integrated headshell design arrived and some " stupid " people like me goes through the integrated designs too!. At the end we owned two same model cartridges that means profits$$$ for the manufacturers: who cares?????
Japanese manufacturers does not cares about those " high end " tonearms with non removable headshell designs ( the Lewm argument. ) because almost all of them have on sale their own tonearm designs that were the " best " tonearm match. The integrated cartridge designs were on sale mainly in Asia, then Europe and in lesser way in America.
Marketing always has an important " weight " on audio item designs and in many cases with no clear audio quality parameters/factors as its foundation.
Btw, 80% of the sales on Ortofon/EMT integrated cartridge designs goes to Asia where today still exist a " cult " for that kind of sound.
I don't see that you and the other " proponents " of integrated headshell designs have wide experiences with this kind of cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
+++++++++++++++++
in the other side I don't posted nothing about"
++++++ but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design " +++++++
by the contarry I supported that the vintage designs are have great motors that improve with a today " touch ".
One example on this was with my long nose Acutex where I own an original ones with only a " touched " VDH suspension , same model with a cantilever/stylus/suspension up grade and one in stock fashion. Well the best performer is the one with the up dated cantilever/stylus against the stock one and the suspension refreshed one. What I support came from my experiences and certaibnly I'm not contradictory on what I was and am supported in this thread.
Now, as you and other people like me we are learning all the time and with this " learning " our each one way of thinking could change a bit. I'm hard sticky on the vintage cartridge motor designs.
+++++ " the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community..+++++++++++++""""
where in the high end community?, certainly not Asia. Even today Dynavector and Ikeda still build removable headshel tonearm designs and the best Japanese tonearms are/were on this kind of designs. Btw, japanese people are not greatly influenced on what happen in other/different high end communities.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
A discussion in the 'Glanz' thread on integrated headshell design more fittingly belongs here! Raul set forth his arguments against the concept:- Dear Henry: +++++ " It would seem impertinent to assume that the manufacturers did not conduct a thorough testing procedure to determine the best possible results in their integrated designs... " +++++
I'm not assumming that. Now, even that suppose I was " impertinent " , seems to me extremely stupid ( for say the least ) assume that 30-40 years old cartridge designs manufactured with the way of thinking of 40 years ago can be today justified as the best way to go against its stand alone counterpart.
All the integrated headshell designs came from the same times, was a trend with the those days way of thinking that a dedicated headshell was the better for a cartridge can shows at its best.
In those old times the subject of cartridge headshell comparisons for a better performance was not only the trend but almost no body cares about. Today we learn and cares about: that's why ( according to Nandric ) you own 30+ headshells and 100+ by my self.
Try to find out the P100CMK4 stand alone cartridge and compare it against your integrated headshel counterpart you own.
Now, I have no single doubt ( because I'm not stupid ) that the FR7 in stand alone fashion outperforms easily the integrated model.
Today we know that the same cartridge in the same tonearm mounted in two diffrent headshells performs different. If not why every one of us are looking for " new " headshells?
Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell.
Many of these " severals" was almost unexistent on those old times, example: almost all the japanese tonearms use the Stevenson cartridge/tonearm alignment, no options and no one cares about. One of the reasons on those integrated cartridge headshell designs were because were almost " plug and play " and suppose more user friendly.
Today we have a lot lot better cartridge wires against those 30-40+ years old internal wires that came with those old integrated headshells..
All we know the critical and paramount difference that those headshell wires can and makes on favor to quality performance level, this " sole " parameter makes huge differences between any integrated headshell cartridge design and its stand alone counterpart.
Glanz is no diffrent to Astatic, Astatic bought the patent of that design but were clever than Glanz and even that Astatic cartridges came along a headshell this is not integrated one but an univeral headshell where you decide if mount the Astatic there or in other headshell and of course with headshell wires of your choice,
Anyway, my point is that any stand alone vintage cartridge design beats its integrated headshell counterpart.
The last integarted cartridge design I remember was the Nightingale ( I think that was the model. ) for the Graham tonearm and has no success on the market, today IMHO that kind of cartridge designs is a huge mistake/error for any cartridge manufacturer.
Audio and most important the understanding on the " fine tunning " audio parameters today are far away on the way of thinkinh of 40+ years ago. Everything grows up.
Vintage cartridge designs are really great ones with very very good " motors " but as you and many of us already experienced every single vintage cartridge that we send to any cartridge fixing source for an up date outperforms the sound quality level of that cartridge in stock condition.
For me there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology ".
Today IMHO that a cartridge manufacturer said 30-40 years ago that's its integrated design is better means almost nothing.
Other subject with those integarted designs are to know : how the designers voiced those cartridges, which tonearm, phono stage, speakers, electronics, ewtc, etc? because as you pointed out the " manufacturers made and had testing procedure ".
The only integrated headshell design that IMHO was a wise design was and is the Dynavector Karat Nova 13/17D that came with a dedicated headshell but you can use it in stand alone fashion too!!!
Things change over time, after those monolitic cartridge designs the trend for the top cartridge models was that with the cartridges came a dedicated headshell ( separate ): this is the case of the AT100, AT700, Ortofon MC2000/3000/5000 and many more.
Monolitic cartridge designs today are a wrong cartridge design and if you support it then why you own not only several headshells but several removable headshel tonearm designs?
I respect you opinion but disagree with.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. As I mulled over my response....I awoke this morning to find that both Lewm and Nandric (especially Lew).....had presented similar arguments to the ones I intended to present today. When I first became interested in audio in 1978.......the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community. That is the primary reason...I believe...that manufacturers ceased their development of integrated headshells. That...and of course the costs involved. Don't forget that in 1980-81 with the introduction of CD......it seemed that vinyl was a doomed technology...so the persistence of Fidelity Research and Ortofon with their SPUs was indicative of a strongly held conviction. The tide had also turned against MM/MI cartridges in favour of MCs so the development of 'high-end' MM cartridges dwindled. I also respect your opinion Raul.....but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design is....as Lew points out.....contrary to everything this thread of yours has propagated over the last 5 or 6 years? I have found very few modern cartridges to be the equal of the great MMs of the 70s and 80s. And in terms of LOMCs.......the FR-7f I owned with its conical stylus, was, IMHO, better than the dozen top of the line modern LOMCs I have had in my system except perhaps for the ZYX UNIverse? Re-tipped by Axel with a nude Line Contact diamond pressure-fitted into an aluminium cantilever........my FR-7f now leaves every other LOMC I have heard far behind. On this subject Raul.......You and I agree to differ :-) Regards Henry |
Got to control myself.
Stanton eBay #380433151397 |
Dear Ben, According to my mom I am the smartest and the best looking 'boy' on earth. Aka 'unique'. Does Dominic paint them? The 'unique' re-tipping work consist in inserting the cantilever/stylus combo provided as such by the supplier in the cart tube. For the MC carts however one can claim to use some 'magic glue'.
Regards, |
Raul, I will like to know what Axel did to the Goldring G800. According to Dominic, he perform a unique re-tipping to the cartridge that nobody else does.
Also will like to know your take on the Sony cartridge. Presently, I have both the XL-44 and XL-44B with Dominic for some work to be done to them. Still undecided which direction to go.
Ben. |
Dear Raul, I can offer you some strange comfort. I am also not able to test my new carts because the Italian seller from whom I bought: Sony XL 88, Krell KC 100 and Monster
Genesis 1000 lives within 30 km. distance from where the
epicentre of the lateast earthquake occured. He is , God thank, ok as well as his home. I was of course reluctant to ask when my carts will be posted. However waiting for
something pleasurable to happen is a different proposition than waiting for, say, Euro crisis to be solved.
Regards, |
Dear Nandric: The 88D was along the AT 1000 ( that shares same diamond cantilever/stylus. ) onew of the more expensive cartridges in Japan too, 150K yens in 1980.
The Sony XL44L came with elipthical stylus and I ask Axel to go with nude line contact. Btw, this 44 has lower output than the 88D: 0.3mv against 0.4mv on the 88D.
I just received up dated by Axel a Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood, the Goldring G800 and the Ortofon MC 3000MK2. I can't test it because my system still down but I think that in the next two weeks everything comes out again. I can't hear either my Dyna Karat Nova 13D and other " new " cartridges I have up dated.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Raul, I am very glad to hear your approval reg. the
Sony XL 88. The coincidence was that Thuchan was just
listening to his XL 88 and regards this cart as equal to
his FR-7f. I consulted Thuchan before I bought the Sony.
According to Thuchan the 88D was the most expensive cart
in Germany in the 80is(6000 DM). For the record the suffix
'D' means : cantilever and stylus made out of one piece of
diamond. Those are very rare and also very 'vulnerable'.
I noticed this cart in the thread about the FR-7 but had
no idea that those are actully two different carts (qua
cantilever/stylus). I am sorry to have caused some confusion but my is the XL 88. I am waiting for delivery of both because I bought from the same person also the Krell KC 100. So,alas, no report about either yet.
Regards, |
Dear nandric: Now that you mentioned, I bought the Sony XL44L that now is with Axel to an up-date. This cartridge was still made by Sony and its design ( motor ) is similar to the 88 that's a top performer, at least that's what I read on the 88.
What were your expweriences with your Sony XL88 D?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Raul actually never stated that MM carts are better then
MC carts. What he deed say can be put this way: 'some MM
carts are better then (some)MC carts'. For the quantifier
'some' in this statement to be true the needed 'condition'
is that at least one MM cart is better then ,say,the Ortofon MC 30. I want bother you with the quantifier 'all' which is implicated in 'MM carts are better then MC carts'. Our interest and hunt for the MM carts does also not imply that we lost all interest in the MC carts. The problem is, anyway for the most of us, the price difference. Discovering 'top'carts for, say, $500 causes the uneasy feeling about (MC) carts costing + 2 K. I discovered an 'easy way out' for at least some carts.
Syntax and Thuchan give me the advice to look for the Miyabi Standard. Fleib advised the Monster Genesis 1000.
I discovered that Takeda made 'the same' cart for: Krell (KC 100), Cello, M. Levinson MLC 1 and Red Rose. Those can be get for +/- $ 600 . Axel can provide pressure fitted line contact stylus in a tapered aluminum cantilever in case of need. This method is to prefer above the 'glued' new stylus in the existing cantilever. I got the 'Monster'
for $120 with the boron cantilever but without stylus. Axel
will need to glue some 'exotic stylus' in there. There is alas no way to pressure fit any stylus in any 'exotic' cantilever. In 'there' the styli can only be glued. I got the
Krell KC 100 in good condition for 500 Euro. For 160 Euro
this one can be 'upgraded' by Axel as described in the future.
I feel smart. What do you think ?
Sorry. I forget to mention the Sony XL 88 MC (NOS) which I got for 400 Euro. This one I 'deduced' myself from the FR-7 thread.
Regards, |
I believe the best Ferrari bargain is the Testarossa. Under 30K mileage with the 30K maintenance schedule already performed. |
Yes I recollect an article in a motoring magasine many years ago - the reviewer walked in on a well known specialist mechanic sitting on the floor of his workshop with a Ferrari motor in a thousand pieces around him.
The journalist asked him what was wrong with it, the mechanic replied: "it has done 10,000k and is therefore completely f*****, and needs a rebuild"
Ouch. |
360 Modena or Berlinetta Boxer can be had for less than $100K, these days. Cheaper than a Continuum Caliburn.
I love the Modena, too, but I fear the cost of service and maintenance. |
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a 365(or 512) Berlinetta Boxer! |
