Hey, Lew: Most sincere apologies if anything written offered offense, your post was (obviously) wholly in the information seeking mode. My "last sentence" was just a reflection that without being able to become personally acquainted with your outfit, there was no way in which I could give meaningful input.
The figures relating to "recommended" capacitance only a matter for reflection. Hell, I fiddle with cap./res. to my own satisfaction, I'm entirely convinced there's so much going on in mechanical influences relating to harmonics that adhereing with exactitude to the Nth pF can be counterproductive, shutting off one's ears to spite one's own pFace, so to speak.
No argument here with tubes/SS either. "No one to please but yourself". To paraphrase a much more knowledgable recent contributor, character is flexible in either arena. It would be either chauvenisticaly unmannerly or a demonstration of ignorance to suggest otherwise. I'll confess to an abundance of breaches of both.
Most sincerely, Peace. |
Dear Lewm: I forgot that I loaded the great Azden P50VL with added 250pf.
Btw, I writed " great " because today the " emotions " surrounded me ( again ) in the last two days that I decided to try it again, all I can say is: WHAT A PHENOMENAL PERFORMER, yes with capital letters.
I did not heard the Azden for at least 12 months ( when was the month's cartridge. ) now and its great quality performance along that my SLFL goes really lower through that time now this cartridge is showing me things that I was unaware the Azden could do it. This IMHO is a cartridge that honored MUSIC and honored any " best " audio system out there.
Now, I'm not sure which cartridge I will make a " formal " review because I have other cadidates ( including the Shure M140HE ) but I'm taken by this Azden. Halcro, pity that your sample is out of work/specs because IMHO this could be the " top dog " in your cartridge arsenal.
Lewm, I think that if you can't have two independent selectors for impedance and capacitance then ( after a test between 47k and 100k in that tube phono stage. ) your choice could be a fixed impedance ( either: 47k or 100k. ) with all the capacitance value options you decide.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lew, I am realy sorry; I thought that the argument was about the sound. Regarding pragmatics one can also mention: no need for a heating system and also add some aesthetical argument like the beauty of the tubes glow.
Regards, |
Nandric, You are reviving the argument. Bad. I will give you one surprisingly pragmatic reason why I generally prefer tube equipment: I know enough about it to build and repair it myself. I will leave out the other reasons while also insisting that I have shown in practice (Parasound amp and Ayre phono stage) that I am not at all close-minded when it comes to solid state. If it's good, it's good.
Timeltel, I guess there may be another term (i.e., other than "Miller") to describe the natural input capacitance of a solid state device, but it does exist. And I think it's even of a magnitude not terribly different from that of a vacuum tube used in a gain stage. That's all I was talking about above. |
Dertonearm, I completely agree with every word you wrote. I also think that verbal arguments on the subject of tubes v transistors are about as worthwhile as arguing about one's religion vs another's. That's why I never intended to "go there". I am not sure I understand Timeltel's last sentence, but I hope he gets the point. Enough said. Apologies all around.
Now I have to go back and see what Nicola wrote. |
Dear Dertonarm, If your argument is valid why should anyone, except the masogist, buy a tube anything?
Regards, |
Dear Lewm, indeed. It's not tube vs transitors. Both can deliver top results. One can design a solid state preamp to sound romantic and "tubey" (ever heard an original Kaneda ss ? More romantic sound than you will ever hear from any tube based design). And there are triode and pentode preamps out there delivering ultra clear and super low distortion ( and only 2nd harmonic if at all) sound. It is always about good design vs bad design. Designing audio components is not a religion and it is not about a "camp". Cheers, D. |
Dear Timeltel, What's up? First of all, I made no statement about a preference of tubes vs solid state. As I am sure you know, ss gain devices have Miller capacitance too. I was only discussing Miller capacitance. I happen to own an Ayre p5Xe as well as an Atma-sphere MP1, and I like them both. In fact I also modified the input stage of the phono section of my MP1 to a hybrid cascode, with an MAT02 bipolar transistor on the bottom and an ECC99 vacuum tube on top, to get more gain and less noise vs the all-tube stock circuit. The amount of phono gain I have now is staggering. Even the lowest output Ortofon MC does not strain the system. Unfortunately, there is TOO much gain for most MMs, even when I cut back the gain by a little trick inside the dual-differential cascode topology. Thus I am using the Ayre for MM/MI cartridges. I am still trying to figure out where it was that I may have dissed transistors. I don't love them per se, but I don't dismiss or disrespect them either. By the way, the selector switch I am going to install is for a third (all-tube) phono stage I just bought, because it is kind of a legendary piece, out of production for 10 years. I am going to see if it can be made to outperform the Ayre with MM/MI cartridges.
As to my expression of surprise at the amount of added capacitance you suggested, it was only that - surprise. I in no way meant to indicate disagreement, because I have no opinion on this subject. Even if I did, opinion does not count where there are facts available. You are correct in pointing out that I did not do my homework by consulting tables apparently available on VE. That is because I did not know such tables were available. Had I done so, I probably would not have been surprised to read your recommended load parameters. Meantime, thanks for the factual input in your previous post. I take your guidance in this matter seriously. But there is no need to get into a tete a tete on tubes vs transistors. |
Regards, Lew(m), and an addendum. There was something about your post that kept nipping at my attention. I finally realized it was your reference to the Miller effect, which would indeed explain why you might find a lower shunted capacitance preferable to mfr. (or typical) applications. Such considerations are just one more factor to take into account when communicating, sometimes it seems if one asks a question of two audiophiles, expect three answers.
I'm confident that after the prerequisite agonizations and sufficient propitiation to the deities of the electron, you'll resolve this to your satisfaction.
Peace, |
Regards, Lew(m): Scientist! Anyway and again, but since it's you: 100% SS, I happen to prefer neutrality to "romantic". Overly analytical or bloated don't turn my crank either. YMMV.
Phono stage is FET followed by RIAA eq. to within 0.02dB, arrayed in a cascade-connected three stage direct coupled complementary SEPP design. THD is -0.03%. Short circuited, hum and noise is 87dB. I hope this is O.K. with you?
Lew, my element of surprise is in the other direction, in that from the nature of your post the apperance is that you consider typical working cap. to be less than 200pF?
Reco. cap. for the Azden YM-P50VL, 100-300 pF. ADC XLM-11 is 275 pF, the AKG p8E, 400. Empire 200Z: 300. Ortofon VMS20: 400. And, of course, the Shure V15-111, 400-500, as are many other Shure Cartridges. These are mfg. figures, documented and available with a minimum of research.
Cruise through the listed recommendations given in VE's cartridge databank for cartridges with output in the 1.5 - 3.5mV range. When given, capacitance loading will be anywhere from 100 - 500 pF. For those above 3.5mV output, it's much the same. In the higher output group, the general tendency is for AT associated cartridges at a recommended 100 - 200 pF, Ortofon and Shures from 300 to 500.
Stanton and Pickering apparently decided on a compromise, settling on a nearly universal 275 pF a typical capacitance for consumer grade decks in the '70's. This is why many had soldered-in connectors (and p-mount tonearms), it detered the average homeowner/listener from making uninformed modifications.
If you find reason to vary from well established loadings be my guest. I'd not presume to critique from a "remote listening" to your system and you have no one to suit but yourself. If, on the other hand, it should give you something to consider then I'm pleased to have shared the information.
Peace, |
Thanks, Timeltel, Raul, and everyone for your interesting responses. I must say I am surprised at the (high-ish) amount of capacitance Timeltel has found to be optimal with various different cartridges. Also, as regards the inherent capacitance at the input, we must also consider Miller capacitance. Here or elsewhere I was recently reminded that Miller is equal to the sum of the plate to grid and grid to cathode C multiplied by the gain, for a common cathode tube input and probably also for a standard analogous transistor input, that can add a fair amount to the 75pF we allocate for cables. So I have to ask Timeltel whether he uses tube or solid state phono and what brand. (Pentode or cascode input shields the grid from Miller effect, so there we do not have much input capacitance due to Miller.) What type of load C sounds best: polystyrene or silver mica? The latter seem to be popular these days for use in RIAA equalization. I only wish I had room for two rotary switches, one for load R and one for load C. Won't fit. |
Regards, Raul: It was a dark and stormy night-.
N120HE: Nude Hyperelliptical .0002 x .0015", alu. telescoped shank cantilever. N140HE: Nude HE .0002 x .0015 microwall/Be cantilever. Tracking, 1.00gm optimal, 1.25 max. Add .5gm if stabilizer brush is down. Shure didn't do Shibata, they called it "HE" instead.
The 140 stylus was found eighteen or so months ago, the cartridge about a year ago. The 120 stylus several months later. Distracted by the Acutex then an exploration of the Signet carts, the ML140HE rested in a headshell until your mention several weeks ago.
It was a dark/stormy night, so out came the 140, with the N120 stylus still mounted. Hey, this sounds much better than I remembered. Two sides later the N140 stylus was installed.
Rivets sizzling in the cymbols, check. Tambourine, the percussive impact and initial clatter of the zils, check. Violin, strings have that woody resonance, the rasp of the bow, check. Woodwinds reedy, flutes overblown, check. Brass, electronica, keyboards yep, they're all there and well behaved, no pushing/shoving/confusion/crowding, check.
Bass? Resolved and defined, initial attack to the point of atmospheric concussion, then lingering with the note as it modifies/moderates, convincingly aggressive without distraction. And tonality, neutral without loosing immediacy, voice is natural, did I mention the quality of the bass?
It was a dark and stormy night but as you promised a review of the cartridge, I thought to, rather than take the wind from your sails to just trim the rigging in advance.
The only question I have about the Shure is will you choose to report or find it meritorious of a "formal" review.
On the application of capacitance you wrote: "I'm using the cartridge capacitive load as a critical and very important way for a cartridge " final fine tunning ", said " final " means that we have to take care in deep on these capacitance load changes: not so easy as it " sounds " but when you made the " right " capacitance load cartridge set up you know immediately that that load is " right " against other values." Totally agree. Some might say the same for varying resistance.
Peace, |
Dear Lewm: Obviously that the " right " impedance/capacitance cartridge set up depend mainly on how good is the overall cartridge/tonearm set up, this tonearm/cartridge set up is the main step ( critical one. ) for you can achieve the best of " that " cartridge performance. The other important subject is with which tonearm/headshell the cartridge is mated.
Regrads and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Till today I'm still " married " with 100K and I don't tryed ( yet ) a higher one, Dgarretson can help you here because he has a impedance load selector for as higher as 250K and I assume he already tryed higher than 100K loads.
In my set up these are the added load capacitance values that I use with some cartridges:
AT ML-180 OCC: 50pf. , Micro Acoustics MA-630: 400pf, Technics 205CMK4: 350pf, Sonus Dimension 5: 350pf, Signet TK10MLII: 150pf, Nagatron 9600: 100pf, Excel ES70XE4: 450pf, Micro Seiki LF-7: 150pf, ADC 25: 450pf and Empire 750LTD: 300pf.
My advise is that if you can leave capacitance alone and independent on the impedance selector.
Those cartridge capacitance loads were " found out " after several tests with several capacitance values, I don't found out a " rule " for this subject ( other that the process I follow to do it. ) where everything were made through my ears " measure tool ".
I'm using the cartridge capacitive load as a critical and very important way for a cartridge " final fine tunning ", said " final " means that we have to take care in deep on these capacitance load changes: not so easy as it " sounds " but when you made the " right " capacitance load cartridge set up you know immediately that that load is " right " against other values. IMHO we need a " process " that can works for each one of us. Till today mine always works and tell me what's happening and what's not happening.
IMHO the cartridge capacitance load subject not only is critical ( maybe more than load impedance ) but makes a paramount difference if the audio system has the resolution for you be aware of those differences.
Good that you are taking care on the whole cartridge load capacitance/impedance subject, good luck.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm, you are completely right!! |
Regards, Lew(m): The Shure V15-111 is the only cartridge (in my posession) with a reco. cap. of 400-500 pF, at 100k it can sound somewhat glassy with a SAS stylus, 47k tames it. This is not so pronounced with an "e" or "he" profile.
At the other end, many of the AT's gain the edgy "house sound" some find objectionable with cap. above 200pF. Many others, such as your Azden YM-P50VL or Acutex 315-111 would do well at 100k/300 pF total.
If exclusive to MM cartridges and presented with six options, 33/100, 47/100, 47/200, 68/100, 68/200 and 100/200 might be some combinations worth your consideration, there are of course others. Presuming a nominal 75 pF for tonearm and IC's, the option of higher cap. connectors would aid in "filling in the blanks" for cartridges with output impedances requiring higher pF's. 47/100, 47/200 and 100/300 are the settings I most frequently visit and of course multiple IMHO's apply.
Sounds like you've given this a lot of thought. Have you read through the lengthy but quite informative "Near-zero capacitance effect for phono cables - method" thread at VE?.
Peace, |
Dear Thuchan, Thank you, but you are talking about MC cartridges, and you are quite correct, added capacitance is never desirable with those. However, for reasons which are too arcane to re-hash here, having to do with the fact that MM cartridges have far more inductance than MCs, sometimes one does want to add a capacitative load to the MM input, with some cartridges and at some values of load resistance. (Note that we all agree that 47K is not optimum for every and all MM or MI cartridges. Some definitely like 100K better. Some like less than 47K.)
My "small loading tablet" will be a 6-position ELMA or Shallco rotary switch. |
Great Raul, this will become a hot summer. Dertonearm's turntable and your tonearm being launched. Exciting. I am selling some very nice tonearms right now I would have never separated from but life goes on...
Lewm, I never used capacitor loadings when matched my carts. I put different resistors on my Boulder modules. In the end it might be the best if you are flexible enough to change the loadings precisely which means you need to have a small loading tablet carrying the resistors. On average you might get a good compromise with 100 ohm, 220 ohm, 560 and 875 for most MCs. |
Question for Raul, Timeltel, Dialolum, or anyone: I am going to re-wire my phono stage so as to provide variable loads at the MM input. I am thinking that 100K is the max load ever needed. Do any of you disagree? Do you ever use load resistance greater than 100K to good effect?
Also, on a more ethereal level: I have room on my selector switch for combining a fixed resistance with some added capacitance. Do you ever add capacitance when using a 100K load? If not, what amounts of capacitance are typically effective with a 47K load, where 47K alone (with no added C) is not already optimum. I have a 6-position switch. I am thinking: 100K, 68K, 47K, 47K + X capacitance, 47K + Y capacitance, 33K, respectively, for the 6 choices. Any better ideas appreciated. |
Dear Thuchan: Yes, this 2011 the tonearm will " see the light " and yes we take very serious the tonearm designer responsability for that tonearm comes with a 100% accurate/user friendly universal protractor for any owner does not needs any after market protractor on cartridge/tonearm set up.
When you and other people will have our design on hand will understand our statements about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear banquo363: Universal, yes that's the whole main target that put Guillermo and I in this excited and learning project.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear pryso: No there are no pictures ( yet ) and we are sheduled by some day in next July/August.
We want that this tonearm be my last tonearm for years to come and we must be sure it will be in that way, this is why we are delayed with.
Price?, no we have no precise idea yet.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul, maybe not only in theory you are a perfect candidate for a universal protractor as you know of course. Looking forward to your coming tonearm! Will it be a universal protractor you are providing with? And much more importantly do you plan a time window in 2011 for launching your tonearm? |
When my tonearm be ready I don't use any more any other tonearm I own or is out there and I will put on sale all those tonearms. That's quite a statement given your previous assertions on the importance of cart/tonearm matching. It implies that your tonearm design is 'universal' in that it matches every available cartridge. Wow. I know I won't be able to afford your tonearm, but like most others am looking forward to reading about it and enjoying it vicariously. |
So Raul, the obvious questions -- how soon do you expect production, and have you posted any specs/pictures of your "final" prototype? Oh, and projected price (US$) would be good to know too. |
Dear Lewm/friends: In theory I'm a good/natural " candidate " for the DT protractor due that I have several tonearms/cartridges.
In normal conditions I should already order it but things are that with our tonearm design IMHO we don't need and after market protractor.
Our tonearm's protractor not only is 100% accurate and user friendly but has all what we need for any cartridge set up.
When my tonearm be ready I don't use any more any other tonearm I own or is out there and I will put on sale all those tonearms.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I supose this points to the approaching decrepitude of many of us on this thread but I also use the Feickert with my reading glasses on and magnifying glass firmly in hand. It works fine with these aids!
I doubt that ultra alignment variations make an audible and consistent difference: considering degrees of arc variations on cantilever straightness, centring of holes in our records etc. However, if I did not have the Feickert then Dertonarm's protractor would sound a wise bet. |
Lew, and other "elder eyes" like myself; it seems some sort of vision enhancement is a requirement for any cartridge alignment.
I also have a (metal version) Dennesen that I've used for many years. I use it with a 2" magnifier (marked 1/2" on the handle?) to sight both the stylus tip into the "tiny dimple" and to align the cantilever with the appropriate grid lines. Prior to that I used a DB Systems protractor but found the back and forth adjustments a bit tiresome. I've never used a Feickert or Mint LP, but for myself, I cannot imagine using any protractor without the aid of some sort of magnifier. Note I can read fairly small print uncorrected at 12-18" but must have correction with objects less than 6" away. |
Raul, For me it's ease of use that attracts me most to DT's protractor and the fact that I so far never invested in a Feickert or a MintLP type. I own a Dennesen that I bought maybe 25 years ago plus two of the Turntable Basics protractors, for different size spindles. That, plus the Stevenson protractor that I downloaded from VE for free, is all I have. This is partly because, like you, I have my doubts that super-precision makes much difference, but also because neither the Mint nor the Feickert addresses problems I have just seeing the tiny lines and the stylus and cantilever. I gave up using the Dennesen several years ago just because I cannot see the tiny dimple engraved in the alu base, nor the grid lines. This is not because I am vision-impaired in any real way; it's just normal presbyopia. When installing a tonearm, I do use the Dennesen for accurate pivot to spindle distance setting but not for aligning cartridges. Plus the Dennesen, or at least MY Dennesen, appears to have been cut for the smallest of the 3 possible spindle diameters. It won't fit over the Lenco spindle, for example. The TTB is really easy to use, but I am never sure that the line from the spindle is really pointing accurately to the pivot point. If you get that wrong, the alignment goes way off. It looks like the DT product solves all these problems in one go. Plus, if I bought the DT, I could sell my Dennesen and recoup at least a fraction of the cost. (I guess this sounds like I am talking myself into it.) |
Dear Lewm: Well Halcro is that person and I'm sure he will come back here to share his experiences and I think that like me you or any other persons trust on Henry.
I like the protractor and its build quality level but for me ( for one or 20 tonearms ) the main subject is quality performance improvement ( over MINT/Freickert or other protractors out there. ) level that I can hear it.
If the DT protractor fulfill that main target this sole fact justify its price and with all what " surrounded " the protractor then I could say : it's a bargain, but not before know that's a real improvement on quality performance.
I have to say that I'm almost " sure " that the protractor can/could fulfill that main target because Dertonarm has the skills to fulfill it through his protractor design/execution .
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
My apologies to all for not having read the description in sufficient detail. It is there for all in gory detail. It all makes perfect sense now. Now I'm curious about the 'more benefits not apparent on first sight'... :^)
It certainly looks like a really top-notch design, especially useful for someone who has a boatload of arms. |
You don't get 23 templates.......you can choose 4 out of 23 (or probably 30 by now). Anyhow.......I think it looks promising and I've put my order in for the first production run. I'll let you know how it compares to the Mint when I receive it. In any case, I prefer the Feikert to the Mint for various reasons. |
Dear T_bone, the opportunity to get any extra template(s) is a standing option for owners/users of the UNI-Pro to adapt to new tonearms they may add later to their collection. Each Mint is made for a specific tonearm - I can hardly be blamed for offering the same.... ;-) ... With the initial set do come 4 templates - FREE CHOICE by purchaser - of a total of meanwhile 30 individual templates for most all tonearms of today - and yesterday. Any extra template is US$69 INCLUDING worldwide AIRMAIL. Of course it can only work with the UNI-Protractor - it is part of a system which can only be used in conjunction with it's core parts. Furthermore you get a true direct overhang template, a true vertical azimuth template, the 1st true center locator which is NO-touch-working AND works with round bearing houses. And a few more benefits not apparent on first sight. Best, D. |
If it comes with all 23 templates, it would make sense for a few of us, but one thing with the Mint is that when you sell the arm, you can include the protractor with it.
Wonder why the templates are also $65 apiece... Can't really use a template without the device and you seem to get all the templates with it in the first place... |
Dear Lew, Your arguments in casu are as if you were a professional logician/mathematician. But despite of this I don't believe that Dertonarm will be glad with your post. Namely it also logicaly follows from your argument that only those with,say, 4-5 tonearms should be interested.
Regards, |
I agree Lewm, and if the DT protractor nails down perfect pivot to spindle distance that is a big plus. Easier to use and the ability to try different null points are more benefits compared to the MintLP. I don't think that just because the tonearm manufacturer may have specified null points slightly different than Bearwald (lofgren A) or the other "universally accepted" methods the tonearm will sound any bettter useing them though. It is the precision of the alighment that is important and the DT seems that it may be the most precise way to set up a tonearm and align the cartridge.
|
Dear Raul, "This new protractor puts ( everything the same. ) the cartridge stylus position with more accuracy that any of the other protractors out there?, if yes then I want to " see " the comparison and if there are improvements on quality sound reproduction or could be that the difference in accuracy is so tiny that the audio system can't " resolve " or we could not hear it. IMHO these questions are critical and I think we need precise answers about from protractor's owners."
Translated into what we call plain language, you want someone else to buy one, make a careful comparison to Mint et al, and tell you that Dertonearm's protractor is decidedly better. Whom are you going to trust to do that?
By the way, think if you had to buy 4-5 Mint protractors for your 4 or 5 different tonearms. That's $400 to $500 right there, if I am correct in thinking the Mints cost $100 each, and you still don't have all the other neat features that help the tremulous and/or the vision-impaired to do the job right. It seems to me that for the owner of multiple tonearms, the DT protractor is not so expensive after all. |
Dear Downunder/all: This is information that I have on the protractor:
" The UNI-Pro's lines and spots are all laser hairline - the sharpest possible. It's template is true mirror - 3 mm deep parallax. Each template is concave laser-cut to 1/100 mm. The actual "sweet-spot" is 1 single laser shot only. I thought it made little sense to make a spot larger than the stylus itself. The cross-hair lines are all laser cut - the lines around the needle spot are in a half arc to accommodate the parallax aid lines when actually checking the cantilevers position as well as the cartridge body's azimuth. Furthermore there is a 8 mm vertical azimuth template to check at every possible point across the tangential curve. The UNI-Pro comes with 3 precision machined POM-adapters for the TT spindle itself. Each adapter has a different center hole to accommodate different spindle diameters ( 7.05, 7.10 and 7.15 mm - others on request ...) so to precisely center each template without even the faintest play. The template fixed over the spindle adapter then is surrounded by the UNI-Pro's main frame with the positioning linear drive and the magnifier slide. The UNI-Pro's main frame fits over the template without the faintest play - due to the precisely cut frame and the special concave cut of the mirror templates.
The micrometer driven linear drive allows precise positioning of the locator arm relative to the desired "null point" (each mirror parallax template comes with an individual figure to dial in at the micrometer). This is to precisely tri-angular any desired geometry. All this is done in less than 2 minutes. The magnifier-slide puts the magnifier in exactly the correct position to focus in on the stylus. You can directly take a bearing on the cantilever and determine whether it is really in right angle to the arc. I will certainly not mention any other alignment tool here in comparison. What I am sure about however is, that the UNI-Pro is the first truly universal alignment instrument as it gives the very same precision to ANY pivot (and tangential ...) tonearm of ANY mounting distance and ANY effective length (14" and less that is ...) and ANY geometry.
For important individual tonearms like Technics EPA-series, SAEC, Fidelity Research 64 and 66, DaVinci, Exclusive, Ortofon RMG 309, SME V, SME 3012, Audiocraft 300/3000, 4000, Dynavector, Triplanar, Reed, Talea and several others are individual templates available all made based on the geometry specified by their designers. All made to the same 1/100 mm tolerance. A matching P2S-template with 1/100 mm precise readings will be introduced on Audiogon on February 25th. It will come together with a goniometric tool to determine off-set angle of unknown tonearms.
The UNI-Pro is all precision milled, made and assembled in Germany. All mirror parallax templates are laser cut here in Munich/Bavaria. The micrometer linear drive is custom made here in Germany too. "
Btw, Downunder I understand all what the protractor has around it but for me the first main important subject is which advantage on precision/accuracy brings me against MINT/freickert/Denessen and other protractors.
This new protractor puts ( everything the same. ) the cartridge stylus position with more accuracy that any of the other protractors out there?, if yes then I want to " see " the comparison and if there are improvements on quality sound reproduction or could be that the difference in accuracy is so tiny that the audio system can't " resolve " or we could not hear it. IMHO these questions are critical and I think we need precise answers about from protractor's owners.
I hope they can share those information/experiences with all of us in this forum.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
HI Nadric, It does spindle diameter as well.
" It further incorporates 3 spindle adapters to accommodate and perfect center every spindle diameter from 7.05 to 7.20 spindle diameter without "play".
WE should probably start posting in the Uni Protractor thread, now that mods have allowed.
The perfect gift for the analog OCD
cheers |
Nandric, When using a Mint tractor the first step as I remember is to set the overhang by using the outside and inside of the arc? Correct? Is this not accurate? |
Downunder, You should also add the measuring tool for the spindle-pivot distance. Mint tractor presupposes that this distance is already 'perfect' or exact. However Mint tractor is the only one I know of wich also accounts for the spindle diameter. I had no idea that spindles differ in this regard but learned about that from Yip (Mint LP). This was my primary reason to order two of them(Triplanar, Reed2A) for the spindle of my Kuzma so to speak.
Regards, |
Raul
One distinct advantage Derts protractor does have is that he has produced individual aliignment templates for tonearms like the Exclusive EA-03/10, FR 64-S, 66-S, Ortofon - all of which are based on the geometry specified by their designers, not the standard B,L or S. Only Dert has gone to all that trouble. Mint is unable to do that. |
Shane, please do that if possible. I searched all over the forum for the review with no luck. |
Dear Lewm/Downunder: Agree looks as it cost.
I think one of the main " questions " could be: which advantages give us against ( example ) Mint-LP protractor?, I mean if I already own a MINT protractor that was made in specific for my tonearm/TT geometry specs and that put the cartridge stylus where in theory belongs in my set up: what advantage on that set up could give me that good looking and very good build protractor? ( everything the same, this is ( example ) Baerwald IEC that's ( I think ) how the MINT comes. ).
I know that the Dertonarm's design has additional " tools/options " or even Azymuth or other cartridge set up needs but all these is not what I want to know but a bis-a-bis comparison looking for differences and accuracy set up with the MINT against the DT.
Obviously that Dertonarm could comes here and make an explanation where we all know he is very good doing it.
As you Downunder I would like that a non-biased owner of that device make the comparison against the MINT-LP protractor and could share his experiences with all of us.
In a mechanical device like this IMHO the only way to be sure on improvements or mere differences against other protractors, like the MINT-LP, is under system tests with both protractors on hand, this experiences/facts will be the ones that speaks for it self.
Anyway my congratulations to Dertonarm and wishes for success!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Downunder, where is your post on the protractor? It looks to be better than any that I own, price notwithstanding. The problem is that I do own 3 protractors already. The built-on magnifier is a neat idea, IMO. |
Lewm. It will be interesting if the mods approve my post re Dert's universal tractor.
Expensive yes, looks impressive yes. At least he has put his money where his mouth is. Will be interesting on any user reviews (other than Syntax).
Anyone buying one ? |
Dear Rich, Dertonearm's tool (you will pardon the expression): It looks VERY nice. It's expensive.
Dear Nikola, I think you might be right that when I wrote something about any audio gear being an "investment", I was making fun of myself. I do not seriously believe this. However, the vintage stuff does hold its value, at least. A friend of mine who is very well known in the business was just telling me last night that a Fidelity Research FR66S was available on eBay any time for $600, in 2005. They now regularly appear there for $6000 and much more.
As Raul implies, I too would never take any advice from Sam Tellig regarding an ultimate audio system or ultimate audio components. He does after all call himself the "audio cheapskate". These guys who write for the audio magazines are just like you and me, only they may write better and/or may have even a bigger addiction to audio gear. Only a few are technically knowledgeable and worth reading. |
Hello, so what do we know about Dertonarm's set up tool? |
Dear Nandric: +++++ " According to some reviewers the amps with less power sound better then the 'big guns'. Sam Tellig and Art Dudley for example. You will be not impressed I quess but the saving involved by avoiding the JC-1..... " ++++++
IMHO ST and AD are not very good reference on that subject and that subject only means that if in the same amplifier manufacturer line the lower power model sounds better than the higher one ( everything the same. ) then there exist a drawback on the design or execution design on the high power amplifier. IMHO a good designed amplifier performs good regarding which power gives you.
I agree with Lewm about:
+++++ " I think of amplifiers as a means to an end, and that an amplifier has no importance except to drive the speaker properly. Hence to me the amplifier/speaker form a closed system, much like the tonearm/cartridge. " +++++
the " key " on that statement is: " to drive the speaker properly ", that could means many things but one critical one is to achieve: matched electrically, just like room/speakers match.
Btw, " avoiding the JC-1s?: well IMHO maybe you need to learn/ask ( him ) why the Soundlabs owner/designer recommend those great amplifiers with his ESL speakers or hear those amplifier on a good founded with audio system.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lew, I like to think that I am a careful reader but when I read your post I need to keep continual in my mind that you are a great admirer of Mark Twain. So when I come across your statement that you regard your collections of turntables, tonearms and MM carts as investment I was realy astonished. I deed read this statement 4 times over. I somehow forget Twain and when I recollected this fact I realy thought: this one is a typical Twain story. However by looking at the prices of those old DDTT, some of the old tonearms and more in particular of the extending list of the MM carts I needed to correct my own opinion. Ie it may be the case that your collection is indeed a good investment. However this does not apply for the amps.in my opinion. The rule there is: the older the cheaper. This was my reason to refer to the 'minimalist philosophy'. I would never dream to give you a technical advise. In economics however everything is allowed.
Regards, |