Dear friends: Something " weird ", do you know why if we make " click " on " audio reviews " ( Agon main page. ) and then " analog " and then Clearaudio Virtuoso we can read it in this format?:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?ranlg&1313624221&&&/Clearaudio-Virtuoso-Wood-Cartridge-
but if we make " click " on Raul ( " moniker ". ) " reviews " appear this format ( main difference is on the pictures ):
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1313624221
and the same happen with any other Agon reviews.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
HI Halcro,
Your thread is one that I have reread 3 time now. A lot of food for thought in your words now that normal service has been restored. I found it quite interesting in seeing the different headshells you use. I too am alittle disappointed when Raul uses the word average when describing any of the cartridges that have appeared in this long/informative thread. There in no doubt, and you have agreed, that the Virtuoso is a top tier cartridge. Is it the best? I don't believe there is such a thing as best. Only contenders. Every cartride you mention in your thread are great cartridges. Can't comment on the TK10ML because I've never personelly heard it but do own all the others. All of them are amazing in their own way when set up in my system being heard thru my ears. In my system, the Ortofon M20FL is a contender. It has atributes that I enjoy that the others mentioned do not. As you have stated, there is no right or wrong when discussing these. Only personel opinions. The frequency responce in Raul's hearing is quite diferent than yours. Mine is quite different that either of yours. We all hear differently. The systems we use are all different. Something as simple as a fuse can be changed in a amplifier and make it sound different. You and Raul both use different headshells to alter the sound of any given cartridge. There is far to many possible variables in our perception of what something sounds like to be able to state that something is the best, or even if something is just average. Only contenders! |
Dear All, Normal service is now restored. We all saw and read where Raul has anointed the new 'King'.....the Clearaudio Virtuoso Ebony? Apart from the cost being $1000.00, I did not immediately rush to buy this current model 'giant-slayer' because I feared that Raul had slightly differing subjective reactions to cartridges than I? Whilst Raul has taught me a great deal over the last 5 years or so, and we agreed on many things audio.......recently we have disagreed on the merits of many cartridge models. Whilst I have liked the old Signet TK3, 5 and 7 models (thanks to the guidance of the Professor (Timeltel)....Raul has denigrated these as 'average'.....a term worse than 'life-sentence' to an audiophile?! Whilst Raul has lauded the AT 20ss and the Signet TK10ML I on the other hand have disposed of my samples of these. Some anger has ensued over our differences although I still believe there need not be right and wrong on these issues.....simply differing preferences. We all know however that Raul believes his preferences to be the right ones :-) Surprisingly then.....I had the opportunity to purchase a used Virtuoso Ebony for less than half price and took it. VIRTUOSOI normally use my favourite Yamamoto Ebony headshell these days for most of my cartridges but I feel that adding wood to the already wood-bodied Clearaudio was not the best idea. Connecting it to the FR-66S on the Raven AC-3 I have been listening intently for the last three days. Whatever our listening differences have been in the past, I have to say that Raul and I are hearing many of the same attributes on this beauty. Perhaps because it was used, my Virtuoso almost immediately sounded 'right'. You know how when you install a new piece of equipment and sometimes you have to convince yourself that you like it whilst other times....as soon as the music starts....you smile, relax and know? The Virtuoso is just so convincing. There is nothing Hi-Fi about it. No pronounced bass or in-your-face midrange or exaggerated highs yet at the same time...the bass is deep, solid and real, the mids are earthy, convincing and three dimensional whilst the highs reveal subtle harmonics in certain recordings which escape all but 2 or 3 of the cartridges in my collection. I won't bore you with the wonders of the great recordings heard through the Virtuoso because that is not my test of a great cartridge (although of course a great cartridge will shine on these). Rather....I put cartridges through the torture test of the most demanding and difficult recordings....recordings with technical flaws or passages so saturated or coagulated with sound that they are generally uncomfortable to listen to. My favourites of these are: Respighi Pines of Rome LSC-2436 (an RCA Victor reissue) Harvest- Neil Young The Beatles-White album At the climax of the Respighi, the screeching strings and full orchestral clamour are guaranteed to bring wives screaming down hallways like demented banshies. Only a great cartridge will soothe the savage she-devils. On side 2 of Harvest, 2 songs....Alabama and Words are so badly mixed and engineered that only a great cartridge can 'unravel' the intent beneath. On side 3 of the White Album (in stereo) Birthday, Yer Blues and Everybody's Got Something to Hide are so poorly balanced and mixed that even the Beatles' brilliance can be lost? Suffice to say that the Virtuoso passed with flying colours. But a great cartridge does even more that sail through torture tests and provide all the encoded information within the vinyl grooves. A really great cartridge provides 'Magic'. I still am enthralled at how, with all the same equipment and the same records one can play a cartridge which fails to move whilst an immediate swap to another cartridge can provide all the missing emotion? How can it be? How does a piece of electronics conjure up 'emotion'? Whether I finally agree with Raul that the Virtuoso Ebony is the greatest cartridge needs plenty more time and a shoot-out with the Signet TK-7LCa. It is certainly a contender :-) |
Dear Fleib: I understand your point on the tantalum resistors but fact is that I don't one that the resistors " improve nothing " but that only let pass the audio signal almost untouched.
In the other side I agree about resistors in speaker crossover but mines are part of the speaker original design that I never touched and that I don't want to go " inside ". That's why I tested several power resistor down there and today the Duelund makes my day contrary to my experiences with Duelund caps that along the Mundorf's IMHO are too " colored " for those prices, on caps I look too for neutrality but you and me know that all caps are not exactly neutrals but the Duelund/Mundorfs are IMHO more far away of that target/characteristic that other ones out there.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Ecir38: Looks great and seems to me as very high quality and very good option with the " plus " of more attenuator steps against the Elma type but maybe because has a shunt configuration the impedance could be not only constant but a trouble with. Thank you to share the link.
In the past I was using the DACT attenuators tha's similar to the Goldpoint with SMD resistors. I used in our phonolinepreamp battery powered single ended and I have to say that works really wood with high accuracy and very very low colorations. In fact when we pass to the Essential we want to use it but DACT does not build with 5k resistance and I was unaware on the Goldpoint. So we take the Elma mechanism and we made our attenuators to the Essential needs.
Now, seems that I'm " drowning in a glass of water " because maybe the best way to go ( even using TX/Vishay nude. ) is that I can change in my attenuators the resistors ( few ones. ) between 10-11 o'clock to 3 o'clok that are the ones where ( depending on my cartridges: MC/MM. ) I stay 99.95% of the time and that's it.
Anyway I would like to try the one you link it and this one too: http://www.khozmo.com/products_dale_ladder.html
I have good experiences with the Vishay-Dale but what could happen if instead those VD goes the ICRs? ( series or ladder configuration. ), another option: we will see.
Thank you again to all of you.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul,
Your language was fine and I do get it.
Thanks
As always |
Dear Fleib: Thank you for the link. Things are that I'm using custom stereo Elma attenuators and are the same as Goldpoint that with its SM model seems even better that a custom one even if I choose MK, Vishay or IRC.
Dgarretson, yes by Texas components. Seems to me that are licensed by Vishay but I'm not sure.
Anyway, thank you for the info I think I could go for two Goldpoint stereo V-standard that at 149.00 e/o looks like a good choice with hard to beat quality performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, don't think you would disappointed with the IRCs for a attenuator. At 80+ resistors price would still be up there. If I had to do it again I would go with this attenuator instead and give the IRCs a try on the phono input.
http://www.khozmo.com/products_smd.html
Something tells me this price won't last for long. |
Raul, the balanced volume control that I use has just three fixed resistors per channel, plus a Silonex light dependent variable shunt resistor. Comparisons between resistor types are simple and cheap with this minimalist set-up. I will order up several IRC models for test. BTW naked TX2575 is a Texas Components product. Vishay rebrands a similar "Z-foil" product as Z201 and Charcroft as CAR. IME TX2575 surpasses naked Vishay TX2352. |
Hi Raul, Funny that your application is attenuators. I found out about IRC from Goldpoint level controls. I needed precision resistors to try different loads in my phono. They seem excellent, although they might not be the ultimate. www.goldpt.com/r_series.html
I think you should keep an open mind about tantalum. The ones I tried were very nice. They are an odd value - for a HOMC I no longer have, so I haven't used them much. My impression was, they are somewhat romantic, euphonic, but that is by no means definitive. They seemed to improve the texture of a DL-160.
High power resistors in a crossover are a problem. They all seem to sound lousy. My crossovers don't normally have resistors. I only tried them with a new tweeter and in zobels. Some people think highly of the Duelunds, I haven't tried them. In the past I used 2 watt resistors in parallel - 3 to 5 of them to get the value. That can sound much better than conventional wire wound speaker resistors. There might be some inductance with that, though it might be inconsequential in a crossover. Regards, |
Dear Fleib: I re-read several times your post about IRC resistors and I think that because its high ratio between price-quality could be the best road to take for my attenuators: don't you think?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Stonedeaf: Not doubt you are a Shure's fan, I love my ML140HE.
Yes, this cartridge load impedance subject was one of the main " factors " to analysed through the thread , I pointed out just from the begin.
This cartridge load impedance along capacitance load are main and critical issues with MM cartridges and could made ( with the wrong combination values. ) a cartridge that you can see it as night and day depends on those loads.
Good that the thread at least help you in that regard and never is to late to join us: welcome!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: The Neumann correction to the RIAA standard was implemented due to cutter head limitations: it could burn it if goes beyond 50khz during RIAA preemphasis. So in the phono stage apply the inverse RIAA standard with out that correction and this means that all high frequencies ( ultrasonic level ) goes to infinite with a fall/down shape on the RIAA curve but because during the recording was applied the Neumann correction at 50khz then the inverse could be applied on playback ( phono stage ) and this means that instead that the inverse RIAA curve goes to infinite on those high frequencies stop its falls slope at 50khz.
This Neumann correction imply a deviation of +0.17db at 10khz and around +0.64db at 20khz and goes higher as higher goes the frequency and that transparency and better coherence/integrity you can hear is because of that.
Now, applying the Neumann correction in theory gives a flat frequency response where the inverse RIAA standard with out that correction can't do it. Got it?, I'm not very good for this kind of explanation because my short english vocabulary.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I forgot. For what you say I think those tantalum resistors are not for me. Thank you anyway.
R. |
Dear Dgob: Thank you to share your experiences using the Neumann correction. Your opinion as the Thuchan one reinforce mine that's is the same: if we can we must use the Neumann correction and my advise could be that if you don't have it then try to get it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm/Dgarretson: I use the Vishay nude all over my Phonolinepreamp most critical stages. Fore some unknow reasons the TF's does not works for me as good as the MK series.
Now, I want to test other resistors on my balanced two attenuators ( 80+ resistors. ) and the nude ones are out of question$$$ ( for now. ) and that's why I think on the IRC that Ecir38 are using in his design. I can't make a mistake because I have to un-solder and solder again all those resistors and this is a " heavy " task. I was almost decided for the MK's but when I read on those IRC I'm in serious doubt about.
What do you think?, I'm asking for some help here. Yes, I could try the IRC on cartridge loading and see what happen and decide after this.
Btw, the Duelund resistors at least have the size and shape of a pencil and I don't care about but its neutrality.
Today my speaker crossover are in reality three separate crossovers each one wired directly from the amps and hard-wired. The tweeter and woofer ones have the silver inductors and a cap ( second order shape. ) and is with the midrange crossover where additonal to the silver inductors/caps are two resistors ( one for each filter. ) and here is where the Duelunds are.
Regrads and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I have read elsewhere, on DIYaudio I think, that the Dueland resistors are naught but lead pencils dressed up to sell for a lot of money. It might be interesting to try to make some resistors using pencil lead. |
Lewm, after several comparisons of these resistors in analog and digital sections of SS CDP, tube preamp, and tube amp, I accord with your top-down ranking of TX2575, TF020, and MK132. On a price-adjusted basis TF020 shines and is less fragile to install than TX2575. The MK132 is warmer and less revealing than the others. I currently have TX2575 on order for comparison to TF020 in a volume control-- which should be as revealing a test as the phono load application.
The IRC TaNtFilm PFC-series SMDs look interesting. To minimize wiring and connector interfaces, perhaps these could be soldered directly to the pins of a dip switch array, in turn soldered directly to inputs inside of phono stage.
Raul, the Duelund graphite resistor is indeed superlative in crossover-- clearly surpassing Mills and cryoed Caddock MP power resistors IME. Even at current steep price of 25 simoleons the Duelund resistor is good value relative to the improvement in performance. |
I realize that this is not close to news for this thread - but recently got around to trying several Shures at higher input impedances and am very impressed.Have used V-15-V/JICO SAS in Rega RB-600 at 100kOhm/200pF with truly excellent results.Tried stock new M-97xE in Technics SL-1200 at 100kOhm/275pF and found it sounded a little too bright - dropped to 73kOhm and was very happy with the result -everything that was nice about this cart to begin with at 50kOhm is still there - but much better detail in things like cymbal shots and brushes and even some electric guitar rifts- but not the least bit hard or harsh. Ultra 500/JICO SAS for some reason I seem to prefer this at 73 kOhm in the Technics arm - perhaps because of slightly higher capacitance in my SL-1200's cable ( not stock Technics arm cable) ? I'm comin late to this parade - but am very glad I tried the higher input impedance with MM idea - it's a keeper! |
Hi Raul,
Just one quick question on the Neumann correction option. Does the apparent integration of the frequency range suggest that additional/connecting detail is being provided here or is there some other explanation for the increased clarity and focus?
As always... |
Hi Raul,
"Dear Dgob: Maybe is time that you give a in-deep listening test to the Neumann option."
Firstly, apologies for my tardiness in responding. I have been away and am still attempting to catch up on my most important correspondence. In response, I have now flicked the switch in my Essential and tried it with the Neumann correction option turned on.
Yes, it does improve the sound by giving a more integrated presentation. I suppose the most obvious cliched analogy for the change I hear is that of having a layer of dust wiped off your glasses. Everything sounds clearer and detail across the frequency range is more firmly linked together. That would mean that the strike of a bell, its midrange tone and high range ringing all occur in closer proximity to each other and make the image and sound firmer/clearer (what I think you referred to as 'integrated').
I therefore strongly share your view that I would not now live without this option. Definitely worth a try by anyone with that option.
Thanks
As always... |
Raul, It is possible that one would have different preferences for resistors used in tube circuits vs resistors used in transistor circuits, because one is high voltge and the other low voltage, as a rule. Since you and I operate respectively in those two different worlds, it is not surprising we might have different preferences. Believe me, in tube circuits the Caddock TF020 is more neutral, more "not there", than are the MK types. It's very easy to hear, and perhaps Dave Garretson will jump in here and support me on this. The TF020 is limited only in that it only comes in 1/3W rating. I think the absolutely most neutral resistors are the TX2575 nude Vishays. The AN tantalum resistors may or may not have a slight coloration, but it is entirely a euphonic one, and sometimes I like to stick them in here and there. If the cartridge tends to be a little "cold" sounding, the tants can add life without making everything mushy. (Please don't tell me that I "like" distortion; I can't take it.) |
Dear Lewm: I don't know why that " noise " about tantalum. I know that Audio Note use it in their electronics but I have to say that Audio Note has a colored signature performance.
I prefer the MK over the TF and of course the nude ones. I'm looking for dead neutral resistors/non-signature ones. Reading throught the TTI site ( the IRC manufacturer. ) seems to me that at least their resistors are very well made.
Now, Ecir38 report an improvement using in a step attenuator and fleib likes over S-102 and Caddock.
Other " advantage " is that from all these is the one with the lower price what's a good additional factor.
I'm using MK to load cartridges but I'm seriously thinking to use the IRC in my step attenuators, right now I'm using holco and resista and I don't want to invest on the Cadocks if the IRC are at almost the same level or even better.
Maybe if I try on cartridge loading then I can decide but many times the same resistor performs a little different through a different application.
What do you think?, any of you: I need advise on the whole subject and appreciated.
Passive parts has almost no rules, let me explain: I try it almost any single premium capacitor in my speaker crossover: from Hovland to Duelund passing for V-caps/Mundorf/Jensen/Jupiter and even Audio Note and no one of them ( the more expensive like the Duelund's. ) give me the neutral level I'm looking for till I found out Sonicaps: dead neutral so dead-neutral that there are people that hate it and say are liveless: well I don't want a " live " cap but a dead one that let pass the signal with out add nothing.
In the same application I try it too almost any resistor out there from mills to Caddock or Kiwame and I was reluctant to try the Duelund ones not only because its high price but because my bad experience with the Duelund caps but I have to test it and I bought it and in the last two days these resistors are the new guest in my speakers, what can I say?: dead-neutral no signature I can detect, very good surprise I have to say and worth its price if any one are looking for neutrality. Unfortunately there is no Duelund's for other aplications but speaker crossover: they were designed on purpose for.
I will wait for any of you advise.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
This may have been said already. IMO, Vishay nudes handily outperform the S102s. Best sounding Caddock are the TF020 series with MK second, would use TF for phono load but not MK. I also like Audio Note tantalum very much and would like to try these IRCs, if they are indeed tants. I think this issue is more important for MCs, where one is likely to be using low value resistors to load down the cartridge. |
I have not personally tried IRC resistors, but someone whose judgment I trust reports that IRC Tantalum Nitride SMD resistors are the best that he has heard. From the IRC data sheets and web site product info it is unclear if the RC55 uses this substrate. |
My experience doesn't say they will outperform, just haven't done a comparison. If you try them let us know.
Brad |
Thaks to both of you. Now seems to me that's time for IRC tests.
Vishay and Caddock are neutral resistors ( if both have its own signature as almost any electric/noc part. ) but if IRC outperform both then this say a lot and in the other side has lower price than the Caddock and Vishay 102 not say the nude version.
Thank you again.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi Raul, I use the IRC R55 series (1/4 watt) in my phono stage with excellent results. They outperform the Caddocks I've tries. I plug in resistors for gain and load. The IRC are very clean and neutral. The 0.1% tolerance makes them easy to try different values as you don't have to buy batches and match them. I used to use the Vishay 102 series. I like the IRC more. The Caddocks I tried were MK or MP series. I also tried some tantalum (Audio Note?) that sound very nice, but seemed romantic rather than neutral. Regards, |
They are known for low noise hence the reason for using them. Used them on a goldpoint step attenuator that replaced a pec potentiometer. This was a huge upgrade not necessarily related to just the resistors.
I think these would be the next best thing besides a surface mount as far as noise go. Plan on using them again when I rebuild my phono section.
Brad |
Dear Ecir38: I was unaware of these Irc resistors, looks and seems to me as very good option. Is this your first time you use it? which are your experiences with?, they have to be very good for you mix it with the nude ( first rate. ) Vishays.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Raul, not Holco they are IRC .1% They parralell 100k vishaey nudes inside the pre. Will give the caddock a try in the future.
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/IRC/RC55LF-D-100K-B-B/?qs=Y0UoVIhhWoPLojHOTn4HaQ%3d%3d
Like you said use whatever you like although need to consider that layout only has .100" spacing.
Pcb is only 1.5" x 1.5", would like to order a pcb for this down the road which should allow the pcb to be even smaller.
Brad |
Dear Ecir: Thank you. Looks fine and seems that works!. Good that we can handle those set up dip-switches from out-side.
I see you are using Holco resistors, these are good ones but I prefer Caddock. Btw, through M. Percy you can get very good polyestirene/polypropilene pf caps ( page 14 in his catalog. ). These two alternatives can make a difference on quality performance. Of course that this does not lower merits to your design, it is up to any one of us tochoose those parts as we judge convenient. The main subject is what you already did it with the design.
Thank you again.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, see link for switch I was talked about last week.
http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h69/ecir38/tonearm%20input%20switch/
This is just a temporary solution to get up and running two tonearms.
Brad |
Near the end of the post we have to read: we can't be aware not only... " instead we can....
R. |
Dear banquo363: Again I agree/disagree with you. I think that the main " trouble " in our hobby are us: us as human being and what this human being involve.
I'm not a devotee of " church of physics " but as you recognize its importance in our hobby. IMHO there is no single audio link in the audio chain where science it is not " there ": electronics design, cartrridges, tonearms, speakers, etc, etc. and yes if it is true that with out specific science ( physics, mathematics, mechanical, etc, etc. ) disciplines all those audio links can't " exist " ( at least in the way we know. ) it is true that with out each one designer " subjectivity " ( that involves not only: listen but scientist skills. ) those audio links can't exist either.
I don't think that our hobby is not dictated by objective science I think it is ( like it or not. ) in the same way is dictated by subjectivity: both " doctrines " live together and have not only a very close relationship but a hard mix in between.
Fleib open that window that many of us even don't know exist ( and this is my main point about the 2+2=15 instead 4. ) with his elephant example and this is what I'm trying to say...Several of us in the whole audio subject grow-up with that chain and for different reasons we stay that way with out break it, we did it only with few audio subjects and many times we never did it.
I always think that science ( different disciplines. ) is not only a great tool but the only one that ( some time in the future when exist those " models " I'm talking about. ) can help us to understand not only what goes on around what we are hearing but why we heard what we heard even that each one of us are " unique/singular ". Of course here we have to leave out subjects like: why I like rock and not jazz or classic music or why I prefer digital over analog and several other deep subjective subjects.
My take is that we have to use more often the " objective " approach not over the subjectiv one but along it.
The great cartridge work that Dlaloum is entilted shows to any one the importance to take in count objective factors/measures along subjectivity to make judgements more precise on cartridge quakity performance.
Objective tests are help me in many ways to understand the importance of different kind of distortions in cartridges during playback. I learned the importance of the cartridge tracking self abilities in favor or against quality performance and how I found out this?: when I begin to run tracking cartridge tests ( years ago. ). Before I been convince of the main and critical importance of this cartridge tracking subject I don't care if this or that cartridge were able to track ( example ) the Telarc 1812, who cares?, I was thinking in the same way that the majority of the audio people think: who cares about that Telarc when there is no other single recording that was/is recorded that way ( it does not matter in what frequency ranges. )?
Well this kind of way of think was fine till I understand was wrong till I understand the vital importance overall job that the cartridge stylus tip must perform. If we want to hear what is in the recording the first " demand " is that the cartridge can extract " intact "/complete/no-distortions added and a main subject/factor to did/do it is the cartridge tracking ability to stay always in the groove and I mean it: stay always in the grooves and not jumping ( microscopic level. ) every single 1/100 sg. IMHO with out specific tracking tests ( objective. ) we can be aware not only the cartridge tracking abilities but the generated distortions either. IMHO exist a heavy weight ( more than what we could think ) tracking distortions in what we heard/hear and we are not aware on it or only a few are, well I'm one of those " few " and this fact is part of the why's in my cartridge quality performance opinions.
Anyway, IMHO as more objective tools we use as more understanding we have of what audio is around us and these objective toold not only not precluide or leave in the dark our subjectivity but only enhance it and of course leave safe and live each one " singular " virtues/bias.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
In_shore, There is no obligation to read the post of the High Priest of verbal punishment. Nor any obligation to read whatever. |
There is no escaping our early development and what we were taught, i.e. how to think and act and what to believe. The most we can do is realize this training and take steps to overcome, if necessary.
A performing elephant raised in captivity will have a chain tied around his ankle and staked to the ground. The elephant learns that he can not escape the chain. When the elephant grows up he is still bound by the chain even though he could easily break it.
Aesthetic revelation could have something to do with traditional religious training/practice, but not necessarily. I suspect that each of us occasionally has some sort of revelation on an individual basis, at home in our sanctuary. These forums serve as an exchange of methods (practices and equipment) to attain that revelation or to get more enjoyment from our rituals. Regards, |
Dear Raul, T-Bone, Dlaloum:
To be clear, T-bone, I certainly am not denying the relevance and importance of science to our hobby. That would be crazy. I marvel everyday at the music I hear from my system (and other’s) and am truly grateful to all the engineers and scientists who make it possible.
My point is that there are scientific concerns and questions and then there are aesthetic concerns and questions. In our hobby, the answers to the latter need to take into account the answers to the former. However, there’s no intellectual trajectory such that once all the scientific questions are answered there is no more need to ask the aesthetic ones. Put another way: an assessment of the goodness of the sound expressed by a cartridge is not wholly determined by recourse to science, to its standards and methods. It involves, to name but a few factors, audiophile culture and the history of criticism in the audiophile community. Devotees of the ‘church of physics’ deny all this: investigation into history and culture is but a stopgap and amusing diversion until 'we' physicists/neurobiologists/what have you are done with our work.
The distinction between objective and subjective is very difficult to get a handle on. It is a mistake, I think, to believe that just because our hobby is not dictated by objective science (the error of scientism) then that makes the hobby subjective in the pejorative sense (the other error of scientism). By ‘subjective in the pejorative sense’ I mean ‘standardless’ or ‘governed only by personal preference’. This is the sense, Raul, that you are objecting to with your 2+2=4 example. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are objective standards by which we can evaluate, say, a cartridge’s goodness. I submit however that such standards are not given to us and dictated by science, but rather are built out of the experiences and judgment of the members of the audiophile community. There exist authorities in our hobby and they are not so merely because they know more science. The best equipment makers are not merely good engineers but after all the measurements are taken, they listen and listen well.
To be sure, there is a sense of ‘subjective’ that applies to our hobby: an objective and complete account of our hobby must take into account and make reference to psychological subjects, i.e. us. That makes it different from physics, the laws of which don’t make essential reference to us. But to grant this sense of subjectivity is not to force us to accept that 2+2=5. I mean everyone is, in the political sense, free to believe that a 3rd rate cartridge is as good as an AT 20ss or to believe, to vary David’s example, that their child’s fingerpainting is just as good as Guernica. But by the relevant objective standards governing the respective domains, whatever they are or turn out to be, such judgments are mistaken—and that is a fact.
This is connected to religiosity via Dostoyevsky (and Nietzsche’s madman) in the following way: if god does not exist then everything is permissible. This means, I take it, that in the absence of a universally applicable standard to support, guide and vindicate our actions and beliefs, there are no standards at all—we can do and believe anything we wish. This is a non-sequitur, both in the case of god and in our case: human beings and audiophiles have managed to govern themselves just fine without god and physicists, respectively, vindicating our judgment. |
Dear Dlaloum - yes all sorts of punishment of course. Now I learned some new helpful expressions...
Dear Lewm - my problem is I was educated in a church - not so deeply maybe like Nandric but...so this experience took me on another path - going away from all church oriented patterns of behavior. agree with you totally, I think Nandric too.
Dear In-shore - yes Nandric is close to becoming a bishop, maybe not a kardinal. Therefore he might need some more Non-MMs :-)
Dear Raul - yes 2+2 = 4 :-) |
Dear Banquo363: I understand your oint and agree/disagree. I agree with the T_bone " take " about science and its importance.
In theory I think all what each one of us in our each one home audio system perceive / ears sense. ) has a scientism explanation ( by physics/mathemathics and other formal disciplines. ) and I have no doubt about but ( unfortunately always are " buts ". ) things are that till this " moment " there is no single scientist " model " that involve all the parameters, alternatives and relationships that are inside in the audio reproduction whole subject but not only that but there is no scientist model that explain: what to measure, where to measure, why to measure, how to measure and its scientist interpretation.
IMHO that's why science " fail " on audio. Even that fact we have several objective " tools "/measures that along the subjective opinion helps to have a better idea of what we are hearing.
Now, our each one subjectivity is in some ways a " science " kind discipline not formal one but empirical that all we acquire through several experinces years.
The problem with this empirical knowledge is that we learn/ned not only the " right things " but the " wrong " ones that we took it and let stay as " weigthy " part of our subjectivity with out aware that information is plain wrong. This fact explain in part why we ( fortunately ) agree or disagree in between on different audio topics/subjects.
Learning physics or mathematics in formal way has no place for what is wrong stay in our mind as " right ": we know that 2+2=4 and not 9. Many times in our empirical subjectivity behavior 2+2=15 and we are entitled with that result and disagree when some one afirm that 15 is the wrong answer and 7 is the right one and we follow in disagreement when a person said: hey guys it is not 15 and not 7 but 4.
It is not easy for a person that learn and that been/was " trained " ( by the AHEE. ) that 2+2=15 that suddenly agree with other person that the real result is: 4. This is what we found out often in forums like this one.
Over the last years I try ( learning and training. ) that in almost every single audio subject 2+2 always be 4: a big 4 or small 4 or cloudly 4 but always 4.
Several of my differences with some of you is only because of that. When for me those seven's cartridges including the Nandric beloved 7V are only average performers for some of you are a lot better than that.
Yes, I'm telling that all of us must follow learning to improve our each one ignorance level ( me included. ). I did and try to do every single day.
Btw, normally almost no one likes " objectivity " because in some ways think that then audio discussions could lose some " fun ". I think is the other way around because now with that " objective " weight we have more " guns " to talk about.
Syntax poste a thread about the greates MC cartridges with out any frame/context ( objective. ) to compare and decide according it. Almost everyone goes and posted and they styll doing and its right no problem here. I posted on that thread twice about the convenience to have standards/references/frame/context to compare and decide which are those great MC cartridges and you know what: no one posted any single word on what I posted. This confirm in some way what I said here: people think that with that " frame "/context ( objective one. ) fun is loosed so they prefer ignore about. Btw, Lewm and Jloveys ( there ) were the only persons ( maybe A. Porter. ) that posted something not specific as me but something that was related with.
This is the way we are! but the exiting point is that WE ALL CAN IMPROVE.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear David, I have no idea about dimensions but Lukatschek, the owner designer by Benz, is experimenting with short(er) cantilever designs. My Ruby 3S has a shorter cantilever than Ruby 2.
Regards, |
Dear Dlaloum, Even a native speaker is not pressuposed to be a 'knowledgable person'. So, it seems, the understanding is not only about language. The sequence of words seems also to be very important ( say prefix,infix and postfix among morphems). Your carrot and stick metaphor has some connections with Kant's apriori and a posteriori or ex ante and ex post ordering. But this also apply to the political systems. The 'carrot' in the socialistic way of production was the promissed ownership of production means. Ex post it was obvious that the labourers become means of production for the party members. They enjoyed riding in those black Mercesdes via their party representatives. We are lucky that we can wote in our political system . This to my knowledge is the only way to avoid the stick. Ie everyone would like to use the stick if allowed.
Regards, |
Dear Thuchan,
Your comment of 09-22-11 brought up a memory of reading about the will of the church forced onto the filthy masses during mid evil time Europe with unimaginable torture methods.
In these modern times Nandric maybe a good candidate for High Priest of verbal punishment. |
Banquo363 With regards to aesthetic perception.... the question remains whether we are attempting to reproduce the carefully structured aesthetic construct of the artist(s) - (including mastering engineer), or whether we individually try to create a new aesthetic in our home or system. And to what degree we vascillate between the two extremes - and what balance we end up choosing.
To listen to a system with euphonic colourations, is conceptually wrong to me - it is like taking the Mona Lisa, and placing it behind tinted glass, because one prefers the way it renders the colours....
One may not LIKE the Mona Lisa, one might prefer Renoir, or Picasso - but the same thing applies.... if you view all of these through tinted glass, you will never perceive the picture the way that the artist drew it.
The other side to this, is that everyone has differing hearing sensitivity, and we may in fact be adjusting the various systems to compensate for our own personal variations (and failings) - and one also wonders whether the artists perception was also altered by their own variations and failings.... Which is the potential start for a completely different discussion.
My first listen (about 1 hour) to the Dynavector DV-23RS last night.... this cartridge sounds clearly different to all the others I have tried. Much too early to get analytic about it - and I will test it thoroughly in due course... but there is definitely something to the short cantilever thing.... Other than the Decca, I don't believe I know of other short cantilever cartridges....
bye for now
David |
Nandric - Brimstone ... an archaic (alchemical?) term for sulphur.
The expression hellfire and brimstone, refers particularly to the variety of preachers who try to inspire their listeners to do the "right" thing through fear of the fires and sulfurous smells of hell... such preaching invariably involves much yelling and physical agitation....
The stick rather than carrot approach of religion...
With regards to the AT7V - what do you mean by "no problems?" - all reports have been very positive, it appears to be a low compliance MM design ... so possibly the trend of the next 10 years in MM... but I have not heard a negative report about it so far...
bye for now
David |
While I am firmly in the camp that the implementation of the physics has an enormous amount to do with what I hear and how good I can make things (does that make me a true believer in the Church of Physics, able to "scare children" in a single leap (of faith)?), I am also firmly of the opinion that the implementation that most of us have is decidedly imperfect, and when we get to a certain point, what each of us likes is almost certainly more subjective than objective (the objective gets you to a certain point, the subjective is what you like among systems of that particular 'level'). Some of this 'subjectivity' has to do with looks, pride of ownership and of the path that led us to where we are, our knowledge of the object in question (specialized knowledge often creates a sympathetic opinion), the fact that one has decided to like DD/idler/BD more than another, high compliance over low compliance, tubes vs SS, MMs vs LOMCs, and a variety of other choices. Effectively, it boils down to deciding which kind of 'imperfection' (DISTORTION! Did I scare the children? :^)) one prefers. |
"When you start to believe that your church is the 'one true way', you will know you have a real church."
Science is like that, no? Or certainly some scientists and non-scientists believe it to be the 'one true way'. There is even a name for such a view: scientism.
On this very forum, there are those who deny the value of aesthetic perception (not in those words, of course) or pejoratively refer to it as 'subjective' or 'illusory' in the absence of verifiable testing/measurements or a scientific account. As if offering a scientific account somehow magically confers value. Cable discussions, for example, are rife with this tendency.
Then there are those who refer to physics just to scare the children on the (often correct) assumption that it will silence the opposition. It often works because who, amongst us scientists and wannabe scientists, dares to oppose the church of physics?
What does this have to do with MM carts? Who knows--but someone brought up the idea of religiosity :). |
Hi All, perhaps I missed much of the discussion. I haven't followed the thread in quite a while (perhaps 50 pages or so). I would offer up the vintage Pickering 380 as a superb example and still quite under the radar. Perhaps I mistakenly assume that these are low compliance given that the best arms for these are very high mass. Cheers. |
Hi Raul, Because my AT-95 is potted and has a custom aluminum top plate, I didn't want to say too much. Even with these modifications I had much the same results. BTW, Wm Thakker was selling the regular 95E for around $32. I believe LpGear charges $10 more than the price of the respective replacement stylus. There is a new stylus for it - a line contact, called vivid line. All these 95 replacement styli fit the CAs. You could remove the stylus on your Virtuoso and try it on the 95, and vise versa. It's a nice cart for a secondary table, especially one with a med/heavy arm. Regards, |
Dear Dlaloum, With all your lanugages no consideration whatever with the foreigners in this forum. What,the hell, is a 'brimstone teacher'? BTW I am a proud ownwer of the AT 7V and have no problem at all with the compliance of this beauty.
Regards, |