Here's the Dutch site, Raul: http://www.pickupnaald.nl/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=1072 |
Dear Fleib, I heard the Sussuro in several systems at RMAF last October. It sounded consistently excellent, and IMO sounded less "mechanical" than some very expensive MC cartridges, including in one case the Ortofon MC A90, but this is far from a "judgement" of their relative merits; conditions did not permit that. The other cartridge I liked a lot in Steve Dobbins' room was the new TOTL Allnic Puritas. Really, really nice. A moving coil type, however. |
Stltrains - some of the classic designs are still being manufactured...
The Audio Technica VM generator is available in the very economical AT90/91/92/300/301/3478 series, the AT95, and the AT120/440/150.
The biggest difficulty is getting good to great styli. The ATN150MLx is an excellent stylus - and at $200 reasonable value. There are Shibata/Line Contact styli available for the other models too at a very reasonable $80. (But the cantilevers are more basic)
Soundsmith continue to make superb MI cartridge based on the old B&O design
Grado (of course)
Shure still has their M series (both p-mount and 1/2" mount) which are very good - but they no longer make top of the line styli for them - Luckily for us Jico make their SAS stylus to fit the Shures. This allows one to combine a M97xE with a Jico SAS for an excellent sounding combination at around $240 Or an M92 if one prefers p-mount...
Ortofon have their excellent 2M range - which has gotten a bit expensive (relatively speaking) in the last few years. But you can still get the older 510/520/530/540 cartridges, still new and also renamed "Vinyl Master" - or the p-mount 320u
The OM series (predecessor to both of the above) is still available in its lower end stylus versions (OM5/10) and various DJ versions (colourful body with DJ stylus) - but the OM30/40 TOTL styli can still be found - so for under $300 you can easily have a working OM30 / OM40... (or OMP30/40 or Concorde30/40)
The Nagaoka MP series of MI cartridges are well regarded and have very good models between $100 and $600.
There are other examples - the MM / MI marketplace has not been abandoned! - and there are still more MM / MI cartridges being sold than MC's - but the MC's continue to "hog the limelight".
A Ford or GM motor car that can drive as well as a Ferrari (in all aspects) - still will not get the press that a Ferrari gets.... Ferrari is a automotive fashion icon - purchased for the same reason many women purchase Louis Vuitton handbags. And the fashion icons of audiophiles are MC's... (Koetsu is perhaps the Ferrari of vinyl...) Which is not to say that Louis Vuitton does not make good handbags, but that is not why they are purchased.
(and some Ferraris are just so beautiful....)
bye for now
David |
Dear Mike: This source has this ad on your cartridge, well not the Gold one but the original as mine:
http://www.turntableneedles.com/Empire-S4000DII-Needle-238-DEQ_p_981.html
and this guy ( Els Zentveldt ) on Netherlands handle that stylus replacement too, this is his email ( I dealed with him and is a trusty source. ):
f2hnikodegraaf637@hetnet.nl
Btw, Siniy123: could you help about and post that Netherland stylus replacement source site because I lost the site and only have their email. Thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: This cartridge project was on desk by more than two years ago till we have the time to go a head and that time is now.
All I can tell you is that will be no LO design. As Dlaloum pointed out IMHO there is no reasons to add additional gain stages ( noise, distortions and the like. ) on a LO cartridge.
As all our designs our targets are looking for the UNIVERSAL concept for any audio friend can take advantage of the designs.
When we be near to the project end certainly you will know.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
So when it comes to new modern MM built cost factor has shown up are there any that compete with vintage nos MM that don't cost like high end MCs? |
O yes when it comes to my cartridges and vinyl TLC is a must along with clean clean clean. I have been very gentle with a onzow zero dust and that works very well. When it comes to the magic eraser you need a steady hand and it works the best for diamonds but was not sure for this type of stylus.
The 4000 came with stylus cleaner fluid that has long dried up in the bottle. Along with a fine wooden box first class.
Raul is there any replacement stylus assemblies that would be available for this cartridge that you could mention. and thanks so much mike |
Tuchan, Dertonarm, It's not that I wouldn't like to see new superior designs, it's just that I think it unlikely. A LOMM would be seen as many to exhibit the worst of all worlds. MM designs have generally been going downhill qualitatively since the demise of 4-ch. There may be exceptions to that, but it seems that way to me.
The market today seems to be centered around big ticket MCs. This isn't surprising considering that not long ago it was thought that vinyl is dead. A hand made high ticket item would make more sense than an investment in mass market items which are already covered. Maybe you could convince Ortofon or AT to produce a LOMM, but I kind of doubt it. On the other hand, I know of one new LOMI that seems to be getting some acclaim. Even though you might doubt what he says, he produces some very fine carts. This is the new TOTL Soundsmith Sussurro. Regards,
www.sound-smith.com/cartridges/sussurro.html |
Dear Raul,
where can I see your cartridge? Is it MC or MM? can you give any other information, price, where to buy?
best & fun only - Thuchan |
Dear Mike: Due to its aged of all these vintage MM/MI cartridges I really take care not only on the stylus cleaning but even that when the stylus " hit " the record on start playing that settle very gentle on the record. I'm trying to avoid cartridge suspension damages.
Till today the stylus cleaning task with these cartridges was through my AT/Signet electronic stylus cleaner: AT-637. I use it only the very first time cartridge is on playback and for further cleaning I'm only using the old discwasher SC2 with a very soft brush every time I need it and this depends on how good are cleaned the LPs and the environment dust level.
I readed a lot of good things on the magic eraser but I never try it. Anyway, try to do this " job " with these " special " cartridges with your best care.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " As for the Lyra cartridge designs (most of which I like): as far as I know, the inherent cartridge design (generating system) is engineered by Yoshinori Mishima - not JC. " +++++
I don't know which the source of that information but IMHO is an in deep misunderstood.
There are only a few trusty cartridge builders out there against several cartridges designers that " send " their designs to build through one of those cartridge builder sources. Scan-Tech ( Y.Mishima. ) along Benz Micro and VDH are the IMHO top builders ( OEM. ). I already contacted these builders because with our cartridge design that we are developing we need a BUILDER, fortunately these great top builders exist and are willing to build our self cartridge design.
The Lyra cartridges were designed by J. Carr and builded by Y.Mishima. Here you can read about where is cleary stated that the designer is J.Carr and the builder ( artisanal one: hand made. ) Y. Mishima, that's different on what you stated:
http://www.lyraconnoisseur.com/
here you can read about too:
http://www.immediasound.com/Lyra_Specs_Rev05-02-22.pdf
and here:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/lyra_dorian_e.html
Try to diminish the J.Carr role on Lyra cartridge design only because RaulIruegas posted about ( because I'm not your " cup of tea ". ) IMHO is not fair for him and a misinformation for all the people here.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Yes as I write I have gentle giant playing and it sounds wide open and very tight. Raul thanks for the answer door you think its ok to use magic eraser. What do you recommend. Mike |
Dear Stltrains: Good that you are here and better that you are enjoying the MM/MI " link loosed " alternative. You are right, the alternative compete succesful with the best LOMC out there.
Well, the Gold on your Empire sample I understand came from that characteristics that is not unique to that model on the Empire cartridge lines because the 100GT is golden too. Inclusive there are are other cartridges that have the same design characteristic like some Audio Technica ones and some others. The designers thinked that Gold improve the quality performance ( not similar but something as it happens with IC cables. ), so that came from design and not at random.
There are other " link loosed " on the audio world that for reasons no one can be sure the AHEE never pushed commercialy.
Anyway, was realy good that all we discover the MM/MI alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hello Raul after a high recommendation from a good friend i bought one of the nos empire gold 4000d3s that are available. Ive gone vintage amps and preamp and thought a vintage cartridge would be a good move. After 30+ hours i would say this was a brilliant move. Mounted on my not vintage TT the sound is real nice much better than expected and does compete with my MCs. Ive been here at the gon for a good while and never read any of this thread but now have started and the early posts are right on with MCs being pushed and MMs being degraded for what ever reasons. Like digital i got caught up in that on my return to vinyl and did not even consider a MM cartridge. Even though back in the day before CDs i had my share of Ortofons Deccas and ATs. I have a lot more reading to catch up with on this thread.
I have a question i read your 4000d3 review and yours has a different stylus. Looking at mine under a 7x glass the stylus along with the cantilever are gold. On every other cartridge ive owned the stylus always showed it was a diamond shining. Can you comment on this.
thanks for starting one fantastic movement for an alternative to our favorite and best sounding musical front end vinyl playback. mike |
Dear Lewm, indeed - bandwidth is the key to a perfect square wave. Here however we deal with a electro-mechanical transducer which transforms mechanical declination into electrical swing. As you mentioned, the resulting bandwidth here is a function of several mechanical aspects (mass, polished area of stylus, velocity of damping, stiffness as well as inner resonance of cantilever etc.) as well as some mentioned electrical aspects. Square waves of top-flight MIs (Grado ...) and top-flight MCs are VERY similar indeed. In fact indistinguishable. I have many cartridge square wave screen shots in my library. A 0.6 mV Grado Reference's square wave looking just identical to a Sony XL-88D (with one-piece diamond cantilever/stylus and low output). Sonic presentation did fortify this similarity (while the Grado was much better on human voices) - I happen to had both cartridges. Cheers, D. |
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Dertonearm posited that the difference in observed capacity to pass a square wave was due to differences in moving mass, and in so positing, DT stated that MC cartridges have lowest moving mass. I only responded to that part; on average, MC cartridges do not have lower moving mass than MI cartridges. That's all I meant to say about that. So if MC cartridges were observed to pass square waves better than MI ones, it is not likely to be due to the MC type having a lower moving mass.
I always thought that capacity to pass a square wave was related most to bandwidth. In cartridges, bandwidth must be delimited by cantilever resonance, inductance, capacitance, etc, as well as by moving mass. |
Dear Lew, It was Dlaloum proposition that 'all MC's ,etc.,but the waveform was very squere. The MM ... but the waveform was somewhat curved', which Dertonarm addressed and try to answer with his hypothesis about the the mass of the cantilever ,etc. Both statements assume some causal relationship between the mass and the waveform. To refute one of both statements one should either state that there are MM carts with 'very squere wave form' or that the stated (co)relation does not apply. We got no answer about this question but well all kind of assumptions about the mass of MM cantilevers versus MC cantilevers mass. What about the waveform of both? This was the question which needed explanation. I have seen no answer to this question because all answers were focused on the mass part of the question. |
Dertonearm, Nice to know you might have been an admirer of my Grado TLZ. It was my one and only cartridge during the mid to late 80s. Over the years, I kept it in storage while I was preoccupied with a variety of high output MCs and finally low output ones. This thread stimulated me to resurrect the Grado from my bedroom closet. I experimented with it before going on to try others that Raul and others here were raving about. It seemed to have stiffened up during 20 years "in the closet". I probably should run it for several more hours on a test LP before making final judgement. However, the same Grado company still makes expensive MM or MI cartridges (I think the latter), albeit under the leadership of Joe's son. There has not been much comment here about those, probably due to the obsession with vintage types. But I am curious, since in its day the TLZ was superb, really better than any HOMC I wasted time with during the 90s and early 2000s.
Dear Nandric, To be precise, DT and we were discussing the moving mass of MI vs MC. I don't think there's any question that a typical MM would have a higher moving mass than either of the other types. Or perhaps you knew that and I misunderstood your post. |
There was also a remark about the Stanton Pickering LOMM carts...
I would be interested in peoples comments as I am about to start testing one - would be good to compare notes...
bye for now
David |
Fleib - I hear what you are saying... and I will try it out experimentally.
I have a LOMM (XLZ) and currently a matching HOMM (XSV) - and can customise their loading to match!
Same design house, using same cartridge, in same turntable, with same stylus, comparing high output vs low output...
At this stage I am not convinced - but this may change.
One of my reasons for getting the XLZ was the hope of finding a stylus with mechanical resonance well outside the audio range... which I can then also use in a HO body as well.
I believe the phase anomalies common to most MM setups - caused by resonances within the audible range - are to blame for the rounded square waves - they may also have something to do with that "live" sound. - After all real music includes very complex waveforms not just sine waves - and the flaw in the reproduction of square waves indicates something....
I note that on the Ortofon link, 2 measurements are ignored... transient response and phase response. Probably not relevant to the production process?
bye for now
David |
Honestly I see no reason why a MM cannot achieve ultra low mass - the Technics EPC100 series achieved effective stylus mass of 0.055g - which I think is the lowest I have seen...
Inductance was 33mH.
I am not yet convinced about the need for hyper low inductance (a la LOMC) - but am in the process of setting up a Pickering XLZ7500S - maybe it will convince me otherwise.
I figure you need sufficiently low inductance to linearise and facilitate the 20-20k range with no phase or amplitude anomalies.
Then comes the other side of the balance - higher voltage = reduced noise and problems in the amplification parts of the setup. - So rather than drop below a certain point, you might aim for a slightly higher inductance in exchange for higher voltage. (ie more turns in the coil...)
The Technics EPC100 is a perfect example of MM taken to the max.
The B&O and Soundsmith series similarly take MI to the max
Do we really need Low Output ? What is really gained by it?
In MC's I understand it, you can lighten the cantilever by reducing the weight of the coil... makes perfect sense.
But on a MM or MI - what do you really gain by reducing the coil?
bye for now
David |
Fleib, generalization is what it is - generalization. That includes exceptions from a general line .. ;-) .. no doubt, there are (have been ...) a few MI and MM cartridges with very low moving mass. None of them however (did) set the all-time mark here. Some MCs have ( had ...) only 5 or 6 turns of wire and the number of turns does not depend on the output, but rather determines it/contributes to it. Cantilever (length, material/specific mass etc), tip, glue - all this is apparent in all cartridge designs - independent of principle. Modern phono cartridges do (did) sport moving mass between 0.2 mg and 1.8 mg. The LOMCs (0.1 to 0.25 mV) however forming the major portion of the "low mass-camp". Each will promote his favorite - who pays the piper, calls the tune. The german proverb however - "wes' Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing'" captures the point even better.
But this is not the point here at all. Why not asking for a modern LOMM ? We're lucky what we have? Really? A supermodest point of view. I for one can't share that humbleness and would really love to see a MM exploring the thresholds of the principle. So far I think that hasn't been done yet. There may (still is ...) be ample room for improvement. There have been some such attempts in the past, but none really going for maximum reduced mass and lowering output to the level of say 0.2mV. Of course the healthy output is one of the - if not THE - strongest points of MM/MI cartridges as it eases the demands for the phono stages gain stage. Nevertheless - maybe one day some dedicated engineer might grace the world with a true SOTA MM-design bringing the moving magnet cartridge to new heights. As for the Lyra cartridge designs (most of which I like): as far as I know, the inherent cartridge design (generating system) is engineered by Yoshinori Mishima - not JC. The Stanton/Pickering LOs have so much more problems in their design, that neither Soundsmith nor A.J.van den Hul could alter nor address all that with a new cantilever and stylus.
However - I have used and loved certain MM cartridges in the past. All of them had certain merits which still positively re-sound in my memory. I vividly remember Joe Grado setting the pace (sonic-wise AND regarding price tag....) with his flux-bridging MI-variants in the late 1970ies and very early 1980ies. While MCs have seen a great deal of attention by many great engineers/designers since the late 1970ies, I wished one of them would sit down now, with a good cup of tea/coffee - take a long deep moment of reflection and start to re-think and re-design the MM-cartridge. I can't see anything bad in that - nor any lack of seriousness. A truly great, modern, MM cartridge would be a huge success on today's market. Cheers, D. |
Dertonarm made a causal statement :'the ability to reproduce a clean squere wave responce..',etc. A singular causal statement imply a (general) causal law. Something like 'whenever the mass is x , then..'. I myself was also suprised to learn that the MC cantilever/stylus/ bobin/ coils have less mass then the MM kind. But to negate his statement one should negate the 'whole' causal relationship reg. the 'clean squere wave' and not only one part of the statement. Ie there are MM carts with a 'clean square wave responce' or the presupposed relationship is not true. Or so I thought.
Regards, |
Dear Fleib, hopefully we will see a further development in cartridge designs. maybe I am wrong when I interpreted your statement that you are satisfied with the current development stage.
best & fun only - Thuchan |
I don't pretend to have a lot of technical expertise about how cartridges work, except on a basic level. But here is a quote from M Fremer, from his review of a SoundSmith cartridge:
"Moving-iron designs such as the SMMC1, or the Grados, use stationary coils and magnets and a small piece of "moving iron." In the original B&O design, what moves is a cross-shaped piece of ultra-low-mass, high-purity iron attached to a soft elastomer damper stabilized in a plastic frame. The iron also incorporates a minuscule tube into which the cantilever is inserted. Each arm of the iron cross is associated with a fixed-coil/magnet structure and as the cantilever moves, it varies the distances between the four arms of the iron cross and the four fixed-coil/magnets, thus inducing tiny voltages within the coils. The advantages of this arrangement include ultra-low moving mass, even compared to an MC design; relatively high output (because the stationary magnet/coil structure can be made large); high suspension compliance; and low vertical tracking force (VTF)."
Note the comment about moving mass relative to an MC cartridge. I am sure DT made an innocent error (I do it all the time), and indeed for all I know it is possible that for some MCs and some MIs, he is correct; a given MC cartridge could have a lower moving mass than a given MI cartridge. But it does stand to reason that because the cantilever of an MI cartridge need not be burdened with either a coil of wire or a magnet, the moving mass would on average be lower than for either of the two other types.. |
Dear Fleib: You are absolutely right. There is a cartridge " characteristic " name it: effective moving mass: stylus, cantilever and as you said every moving part. Here Ortofon talk about effective mass on stylus/cantilever:
http://www.sydneyhificastlehill.com.au/prod941.htm
but are a lot of examples in the net as white papers too.
Maybe JC could brings here some additional " light " on the subject. I think, with out diminish yours, we need expert opinion and JC is a successful cartridge designer.
Regrads and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dertonarm, It's tough making generalizations like that about moving mass. Core-less has nothing to do with it. Some MCs have only 11 or 12 turns of fine wire, but that depends on the output. Every moving part including the tip and the cantilever contribute to moving mass. Your point is absurd. Lederman knows what he is talking about.
You can't be serious about someone producing a new LOMM. We're lucky we have what we have. I take that as a dig at the Stanton/Pickering LO. Be that as it may, I bet if one is sent to Soundsmith or VDH, it will come back truly amazing. Regards, |
Dlaloum, I went to Ortofon web site to look up eff tip mass. It seems they no longer publish that. However, I stumbled on this, that you might find of interest. www.ortofon.com/technology/the-measurement-test-chain
Regards, |
Dear Lewm, sorry, but I can't buy that from PL. Core-less LOMCs do have much less moving mass than even the lowest output MI ... In any case my main intention was to express my interest in a true high-class LOMM design. Dearly hope that one day we see such a thing. Might be well worth musing about ...... hmmmmm Cheers, D. |
Dear Dertonearm, To elaborate on what I think T_bone was getting at, of the 3 basic types of cartridge, MM, MI, and MC, the MI type will tend to have the lowest moving mass, not the MC type. This is a matter of fact as told to me by Peter Lederman, to explain why he still pursues the design and production of top quality MI cartridges. I subsequently have read statements that are in agreement with this concept, from other independent sources. (You could argue that PL has a vested interest in making me believe that MI cartridges are superior in one way or another, but I don't think he was "blowing smoke", as we like to say.) Furthermore, it makes sense if you think about how each type of transducer has to operate. |
Well, the first enemy to attain levels of Excellence.
R. |
Dear Timeltel: Thanks to ask. It is incredible but we are almost on " stop " because the wire-cable supplier that we choose can't ship our order from more than a month and this " last " test is very important not only on the item perfrormance but we need a trusty supplier.
yes, we are on delay.
On other issues, with MM/MI designs not only body resonances are critical ( same with MC ones. ) but on the stylus body assemble on the stylus guard, etc, etc,. We need to " fight " against resonances/distortions that were not on the audio item designs.
I posted that distortions are the main audio quality performance enemy and that's why ( especially with analog. ) all of us are looking how to damp in better way the TTs using different kind of mats/clamps/TT platforms and the like, we are looking how to dapm/take away vibrations/impede vibrations outside-inside on electronics, CDP, speakers, room, tonearms, arm board, headshells, cables, etc, etc.
There is no single audio link in a system audio chain where that enemy " lives " and we have to " destroy " it or at least lower distortions on each and all links in that audio chain. Of course that are different importance level on those distortions depending its kind of distortions, its intensity and where develped those distortions.
Now, IMHO to know that we need to lower " distortions " ( everywhere. )could be useless if we don't have a " method/process/tests " ( with both: objective and subjective " weight ". ) to be aware of those distortions to identify it and after be aware of distortions know how we can lower or work to disappear it and sometimes accept that we have to change and choose a different new audio item/link. This is why I posted that maybe we are the first enemy to audio when we are unaware of those distortions or we don't take care about because our targets are different or just we love those distortions.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dlaloum: Now I agree. I posted that stylus/cantilever/suspension is a sub-set of the cartridge-set and is useless and very dificult try to separate each part to make evaluations.
Yes, we are in the same boat about but I still think in the way I posted about what a cartridge designer try to achieve on his designs.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dert, I would imagine that the LOMIs out there would also give those same LOMCs a run for their money... |
David, Interesting - using shunt capacitance reduced overshoot on the Talisman. The curved or angular square wave is phase angle anomaly on the MM. Perhaps reducing capacitance will improve it. It would be interesting to see if there is an effect on transient response as well. Regards, |
David, ***With sufficiently low C, higher inductance designs can be given the same performance parameters as lower inductance designs***
IMO you couldn't be further from the truth. You're relying on amplitude response and that's only one aspect. A truly high inductance cart can not offer the fidelity of a low inductance high quality version. A 681 vs a 881 would be a good example, except one is a MM and one is a MI. But take any example of a high inductance model and play around until you have flat response. That sound will lack reality. When you hear it playing from another room, the sound won't almost fool you and sound like it could be live. Regards, |
Hi Guys,
yes when talking about the "stylus" I am talking about the entire removeable unit on a typical MM / MI setup
That is to say the needle itself, the cantilever, the suspension and the damping...
Although the needle affects the levels of distortion and detail extracted from the groove, it doesn't so much affect the sound... The cantilever/suspension/damping is the key to that!
I consider them as a single unit, because I am not willing to take the risks involved in attempting actual direct cantilever and suspension modifications - or the transfer of cantilever/suspension to alternate styli.... this is beyond me (at least for now) - so I treat the units as an integral whole.
When considering the "building blocks" of a turntable setup, I therefore consider the Stylus unit to be the single most critical aspect.
The needle will define the detail and distortion limitations, cantilever and suspension will define mechanical resonance - and damping will in turn modify the resonance - the resonance, and its damping will in turn influence phase and transient behaviour.
Most MM /MI bodies of standard output (ie not the very low output Pickering XLZ/Stanton 980LZ - but most others) - can be configured to very similar electrical performance.... - so the transfer of an ATN440MLa stylus to a TK6Ep cartridge carries the "character" of the AT440MLa with it.
Hi Timeltel - I actually agree that once the overall sound has been handled with loading, then detail aspects like the wire types, cartridge construction, damping internally within the cartridge, firm stylus mounting (blue-tack, glue) - etc... start to get their chance to make a difference. The more you get sorted, the more it exposes the remaining flaws.... which is one of the aspects that give this hobby its charm.
On your other comment about critically damped response - I understand how to achieve this with the electrical system. However within a cartridges mechanical system this is only possible by modifying the damping and suspension of the cantilever - mechanical mods I am just not willing to do. (call me chicken...)
Also it is easy enough to "flatten" the frequency response using either analoge EQ circuits or Digital Linear EQ. BUT - this will not repair the phase anomalies generated by the resonance and its damping. And there is not way of correcting them without being able to measure them - which is not readily viable.
So we need to strive to select styli and configurations that minimise the phase anomalies - because once they have happened, there is not much we can do about them. (unlike F/R amplitude anomalies that we can correct far more easily)
I have been on the hunt for low inductance design cartridges for this very reason.... (which I will explain) A low inductance cartridge makes it almost impossible on a standard configuration (47k, 100-400pf) to generate an electrical resonance - so electrical resonance tends not to be used as a corrective mechanism for the amplitude F/R.
Without this corrective mechanism - and with the typical very linear extended F/R provided by a low inductance setup - there is nowhere to hide a mechanical resonance - so the Stylus designs tend towards designs that push the mechanical resonance beyond the audible zone. This ensures that the phase anomalies are also pushed beyond the resonant zone.
So there is therefore the potential for providing performance which is linear in both amplitude and phase...
Lots of guessing going on here.
So far what I have that I have measured is an ADC SuperXLM - inductance around 280mH - not really low enough - but the concept works - stylus resonance is somewhere between 21k and 23k - so it still impinges on the audible area, but to a more limited degree.
Today I received a Pickering XLZ-7500-S - with what appears to be a good condition stylus (!) - with inductance of 1mH, resitance of 3 ohm and output similar to a LOMC - I expect that it will support my theses .... I will know more in a few days.
Other cartridges of interest would be the Technics EPC100 (33mH - too expensive nowadays...), AT22/23/24/25-TK9/10 family (88mH - on its way to me now!).
My first try at this was the Grado - which at 50mH is right in there - but its electro-magnetic design is such as to make it difficult to seperate electrical from mechanical response, and therefore it does not help in shedding light on things (not to mention being more difficult to optimise).
Raul - In amplitude F/R terms I can see the purpose of capacitance.... in phase terms I consider it risky - if not critically damped that is. The other thing that I do not yet understand is the transient response and how various things affect it. I can now relatively easily optimise a cartridge for flattest F/R possible while maintaining critical electrical damping. It appears that capacitance might be a factor however in controlling ringing and overshoot (as mentioned in my previous post) - ie improving transient response - this I need to get a handle on now... A step at a time.
Bye for now
David
p.s. I should probably clean up the model and publish it out to those who are interested... it is after all just an excel spreadsheet! |
Dear Dlaloum, dear Timeltel, the ability to reproduce a clean square wave response - i.e. fast rise and settling time - is direct related to moving mass INSIDE the cartridge. By their very design, MMs and MIs do struggle with a much higher moment of inertia compared to most MCs. Or in other words: the low moving mass is one key advantage of a LOMC (I would say it is THE key advantage - construction-wise). I for one would really love to see a really low output moving magnet - a LOMM - cartridge one day with say 0.2 to 0.4 mV output and very small (read: lightweight ..) magnets and resulting vast decreased moving mass. Done right, it will give even the very best LOMCs a tough path to follow. Cheers, D. |
Regards, Raul: I read the post from which you quoted and appreciated the insight. I know I'm "preaching to the choir" but other considerations not to be taken for granted are the sonic qualities of the materials used in both generator and stylus assemblies. The differences heard in cantilever material (beryllium/alu.) or LC-OFC compared to PCOCC windings is discernable, nor is how the cartridge body handles resonance to be disregarded. Peter Pritchard said he could hear tie wire resonance and consequently avoided their use. Capable cartridge designers have my respect.
How are things going with your tonearm?
Peace, |
Regards, Dlaloum: Mechanical aspects of mass/spring/damping relate to cantilever/suspension design and have unavoidable effect on rise and settling time. When you stated: 90% "stylus" dependent, are you saying these considerations (stylus + cantilever + suspension) are inclusive? If so, and IF electrical and mechanical systems are analogous then critically damped response in either field can be achieved by loading. Just trying to think from your perspective.
Peace, |
Dear Dlaloum: I have no doubt that that is what your " model " tell you but: that model take in count all and each single factor with influence on the cartrridge final quality performance? how are you sure?
on 06-13-11 a very well regarded cartridge designer posted this:
+++++ " In general, I find that a stylus with a longer and narrower groove contact patch is likely to provide greater detail resolution, improved tracking and quieter pops and ticks, but does not have nearly as much effect on the overall sonic personality of a cartridge as the cantilever (or damper/suspension system). " +++++
a cartridge quality performance is a result of what the designer decided to achieve against his success to achieved and that success depends not only in that the design was a good design or in that the cartridge build parts were the right ones or in the good excecution level of that design but in the cartridge voicing too and cartridge fine tunning to achieve his targets. The stylus IMHO is only one of many factors and IMHO not themain one to a cartridge has a successful performance according design targets.
Not knowing your model I can't understand for sure your conlcusions about the stylus ( I'm not trying to diminish in anyway the cartridge stylus importance. ) against several other factors with influence in the final cartridge quality performance.
Btw, if you read through several of my cartridge test-posts you can find that in many of them the " best " result I achieve was adding capacitance not lowering it.
Anyway and as Fleib posted we can disagree on the subject and maybe is better this way because this open a wide window to learn deep on the whole subject. Yes, for the moment I disagree on that 90+ stylus importance rates.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul,
With regards to your comment of a TOTL cartridge working best with its intended stylus.
With the greatest of respect I disagree.
At the manufacturer recommended loading - this will be partially true - but the loadings are always limited by market forces (47k / 100k are the only options, and in later periods 47k only)
From my own testing, I think that any blend of stylus and cartridge can be optimised using both C and R loading, and that the end results are primarily (90%+) dependent on the stylus.
With sufficiently low C, higher inductance designs can be given the same performance parameters as lower inductance designs....
When we are talking the last 5% of a cartridges performance potential - details of construction of the cartridge body will start to make a difference, as will firmness of stylus mounting... but cartridge loading will easily overwhelm all of these in terms of its impact.
On a related topic... I was recently looking at early 80's reviews of TOTL cartridges - all were showing square wave plots. All the MC's showed overshoot and ringing, but the waveform was very square. The MM's showed well controlled overshoot and relatively minimal ringing - but the waveform was somewhat curved.
A test of a Talisman IIIs cartridge, showed that increasing the capacitance on this MC cartridge, reduced the overshoot and the ringing (on a cartridge with negligible inductance!).
Are there similar phenomena to be found in MM cartridges?
Are there transient response issues that can be adjusted using loading on an MM?
The frequency response adjustments using loading are very clear - not so for transients!
bye for now
David |
Or maybe I beeingn a little short and we are the main and first audio enemy ??????
Raul. |
Other cartridge manufacturer that knows a lot about is J.Grado and in their plastic body cartridges ( like my The Tribute. ) you just can't pull out the stylus assembly you need a special tool to do it. I think that in the wood models is no user any more removable.
IMHO we need to " attack " distortions where are happening and " destroy " it before goes inside each one ears.
Dear friends, IMHO distortions ( as a whole ) are the main audio enemy the second one IMHO too are each one of us.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Siny123: The stylus is: 0.2x0.7 not 0.8
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
owning both ATN22 and ATN24 styli in original AT packaging I can attest that the diamond shank on AT22 is beefier than ATN24. |
Dear Fleib: 7V-TK7: I bought the TK7s to be aware and confirm or not what other people reported about but unfortunately I did it with out take in count ( I own so many cartridges that I can't remember ( a priori ) every single one. ) that I already own the 7V.
From here I agree on all your post:
yes stylus guard almost always degrade the cartridge signal quality performance, almost all the people here know about because there are several posts/reviews by me and other persons that states that important issue.
Plastic plug/body holding stylus:
this makes a whole quality performance differences. If it is true that one " advantage " on the MM/MI cartridges is that it is easy to change the stylus ( than LOMC ones where we have to send it to the manufacturer. ) and have some " fun " changing or " up-dating " with different stylus replacement on the line it is true IMHO that this characteristic is a " weak " factor on this type of cartridges.
I was aware on this issue several years ago and what I did about was to glued firm to the cartridge ( now not taking that " advantage " any more. ) on those cases were the stylus seems to me more loose than others.
I posted here something about and if I remember Daniel posted too. Even I reported that on my Nagatron 350-360 that was " refreshed " last year by VdH arrived with the stylus body/plug perfectly glued with out asked for to VdH.
IMHO the resonances/distortions for that sole MM/MI cartridge design characteristic are higher than what many of you could think ( not you Fleib. ).
How IMHO manufacturers dealt with this specific issue?, well we have to remember that in those times existed a fierce competitive cartridge market oriented not only with quality but price.
If you take the 7s against the 20SS or 15SS 0r the Audio Technica AT-ML160-LC/OCC you can see the differences on phisical quality between them and ( between other things ) there are two differences that the 7s has not: one is that the stylus plug is more loose ( has more play. ) that in the top cartridge brothers and the other is that the body plug it self is made it on the top cartridges ( I reported these when I tested the 3-5-7 against ( a few weeks ago ) the 20SS ) with better characteristics for lower resonances ( to lower induced distortions. ): the stylus plastic body on the seven is thinned than the one in the 20SS or the 160.
All these manufacture characteristics means money because you need more time to take care on the cartridge for a firm stylus body cartridge body contact and for the material price it self. The harder competition on that old market was on the 100.00 to 170.00 price range so the manufacturer have to build cartridges to a very specific price-point. This does not happen in that way with cartridge models in the 250.00 prices, like the 20SS and other top cartridges on those times, and that's why not only a better build parts/materials but the time on design these top cartridges.
Let me tell you that I always have a hard time dealing with the Audio Technica AT-ML160-LC/OCC when I need to pull out the stylus because came almost as if the fit was " glued ". Yes, some MM/MI cartridge manufacturers of those times were really aware on these critical issues.
That's why appear the AT-24 and the TK10MLs and the Technics P100C and ADC TRXs that preclude the whole degradation subject through a screw to attach the stylus and B&O made it even better: the B&O cartridges are not user removable stylus.
I think that the ones that are " playing " with those cartridges changing different stylus there will comes the time when the " fun " goes out/off and when this happen the best way to go is to glue the stylus ( the one each one choose as " the best ". ) to the cartridge body.
There are a lot of cartridges with this problems, if I remember I reported too on the Empires 4000s.
IMHO each one of you have to take seriously on these regards or like till today follow " enjoying " high 3-5-7s cartridge distortions ( that are not on the recording. Thuchan, now you could understand one of the multiple sources where you are adding distortions with out " necessity "? ) that in the other side many of you " die for ": certainly not me.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
raul, I hope that you have AT24 owners manual and can shed more light on the specs. Because the spects from these 2 sources are different:
http://www.audiostereo.pl/uploads/old/post-3405-100000853%201170278536.JPG
and
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDAtechnica/AT-24.html&ei=p7IITsTNA7PUiAKJnanODQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDAtechnica/AT-24.html%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D1Sa%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns |
Dear Siniy123: Thank you.
I think that with the very top cartridges the cartridge will perform best with its original stylus that was the way was designed to achieve the manufacturer targets.
As I told you I will take time to test again my AT-24 and will report about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
AT-7V vs TK7_ On LpGear which imports the 7V, it's intimated that these are the same generators. It could very well be. There were 2 series of these Signets. The first has tips that can be exchanged with a 15/20 series, like the SS. The 2nd has styli that can be exchanged with the modern 120 series, with the exception of using the Signet stylus on a modern AT. The plastic holder prevents it from seating properly. Remember the styli are quite different and you have to use the VTF etc of the stylus, if not the original.
This brings up another aspect. IMO the stylus guard can only hurt performance and is better left off. I think the same is true for the whole plastic stylus holder called wings. If you trim this away and use it like a Clearaudio, I think it sounds better. You might want to use a bit of tack on the plastic plug at the bottom of the body. |