Acman3: Danny, all. An addendum to the previous post: the cantilever for the 440MLa is tapered alloy. Nude square shank micro line stylus. It is probable there are similarities in cartridge body dimensions of the MR5.0, AM10/20-50 but output differs, the 440 at 4.0 mV, the AM series is 5.0 mV. From the cartridge data base, VE. Output for your MR5.0 is not listed. Output for the much accoladed Tk/e design also differs but styli are reportedly exchangable for models below Tk-9.
There are rumors the body for the Tk/ea is slightly wider than the Tk/e, which of these is comparable to the cartridges discussed above and also wether this is accurate will require additional information. |
Regards, Acman3. You're correct about the Tk9/10 sharing the same design as the AT25. Turntableneedles.com shows the same stylus for either application. Other than word of mouth I've not been able to find much accurate information. Thanks for the needed correction, anything you or another can provide is welcome.
I've been enjoying the lavender colored ML stylus from a AT440MLa in the AM20 body, as well as with a recently found AM10s cartridge. Either is a rewardingly accurate combination, boron cantilever and nude ml stylus for the 440MLa, IIRC. Even with my antique all SS rig, voice and piano are smooth, the splashy hf's that had prevented my enjoyment of the AT440 cartridge are absent while still retaining good extension. There is satisfing weight in the bass without seeming ponderous and imaging qualities are among the best I've heard.
I find the 5.0me stylus slightly edgier than the AM20me (minature elliptical), the 20 has a glow about the mids and is less analytical, this may be a consequence of the AM20's less bulky/rigid plastic stylus "sled". Rick Wakemans' and Al Stewarts' sometimes piercing vocals are nicely delivered. All permutations seem well matched to the 12gm eff. mass Tech. EPA-250, sounding especially good on a 6.5gr. mag. headshell at 1.4gm VTF. The variations I've tried all seem slightly muddy on the lighter EPA-500H arm which does best when tracking at a lower downforce. Keep in mind, other than the 440MLa stylus, none have more than 15 hours of use at this time.
I'm not sure how I've managed to overlook Signet in the past, all other cartridges in my collection are currently being neglected. |
Timeltel, Interesting, So if stylus's are interchangeable on MR and AM then most likely they used same body??? That would give us a larger selection of stylus.
If you found the Signet AM collection with the MR me stylus that means others probably already knew this. So much knowledge is lost.
As far as AT 25 being a former Signet model,you are right, but it appears,at least from turntable needles, to be from TK10/TK9.
I kept the booklet to the Signet MR series for many years but now can not locate it. Will continue looking.
Danny |
Dear Lharasim: I don't have on hand a Decca cartridge. Thuchan has it, I hope he can share his experiences about.
I'm sure other people own Decca's maybe some of them could help.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Raul and friends...
Lots of cartridges tested but no Decca's?
any in the future??
Good Listening!! |
Stanwal it is so complex that even to make the factors list is a very hard task.
Raul. |
Dear Stanwal: I can't say that a high compliance cartridge design is a flaw design, I can say is a different design.
Compliance is not only important for look at the tonearm we can use but is important on the " aptitude " to improve tracking in a cartridge and to lower the tracking distortion.
Nothing is perfect, always are trade-offs but an important subject in all this cartridge compliance and effective mass tonearm relationship is that almost all these very high compliance cartridges performs and gives you a very high quality performance even with severe mistmatch in the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency figure.
My Sonus Dimension 5 has 50cu and performs just splendid in my AT 1503 tonearm that is over 20grs on effective mass.
The real " subject " is: how could be? why things are happening in this way when in theory is supposed can't happen in that way?
I don't have the right and precise answer and I don't know any one that already has the answer.
There are a lot of posts in this thread and other threads speaking on the same and the only answer I have is that the quality performance relationship between tonearm/cartridge is not only beyond that resonance frequency calculation but there are so many factors that have influence in the cartridge/tonearm behavior that for we can have an answer we need to create a mathematic model that take in count each one of those factors and its own and overall relationships and then " move/change " ( the values. ) one by one each of those " factors " and see what the model tell us till we understand what is happening.Not an easy task for any one.
In the mid-time what can we do? other than enjoy those gems.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Acman. Several comments I've read indicate the MR 5.0 is a good one, but then I've not read anything negative about any Signet. Some approving comments about their tonearms too.
I've been listening to the AM20 cartridge for a week now. Sometimes with the 0.2 x 0.7 "minature elliptical", nude mount stylus you mention for the MR5.0-me, they exchange nicely. A friend listened to it, comment was "I want one". The AM series may sound a little softer than the 5.0, I'm still trying to determine cartridge res. & impedence figures and haven't heard the 5.0 so don't take this as gospel. The AM series extends to AM50, I think this one may be the AT25 in Signet clothing. This stylus is a curious little metal insert that secures into the cartridge's socket with a screw. Lots of guessing going on here for now, I'm not sure I can afford real knowledge until next year.
Anyway Danny, I've found another of the AM series bodys, perhaps we can anticipate an exchange for sampling, when it arrives. Since you asked and it is informational, the styli are original & I won't forget you asked about a replacement. Some are labeled Signet, Stow, Ohio. Others are Signet Division, A.T. U.S., Inc., made in Japan. Knowing the time-frame would be of interest. |
Timeltel, I have been listening to the Signet MR 5.0 and it is better than I remembered. I had listened only briefly to it on main system. Had been used on old cheap Rotel turntable in old system. Sound is a little more HiFi than the Empires and Otofon FL20. More lively like the Audio Technica's. I prefer the Empire D3 type sound but the Signet impressed me on some recordings.Expected it to be good on rock and jazz but surprised me on classical.
I do not claim to be an expert but would seems like a no brainer to find one if possible since you have the stylus.
On another note, are the ME stylus's you have genuine or replacement? The one I have is a replacement. I remember the ME being warmer, but that was on a Nad/carver system with Polk SDA's. Maybe if you had to many and needed to get rid of an extra????
I live 50 miles north of Dallas so I think taking it to you to listen to is probably not happening but if you can't find one in the near future Email me and I'll send it to you for a listen.
There is also an LC.
Danny |
There was a basic design flaw in many of the classic MMs, the compliance was simply too high to work properly in most, if not any, tone arm. High compliance was seen as a goal in itself and not as an aid to better sound. The response was to make lower and lower mass arms, again whether or not this improved the sound. I ordered a Transcriptors Vestigial arm but when I saw that it was essentially held together with thread I sold it without taking it out of the box. I think its mass was in the 3 gram area. I remember that one cutting edge cartridge supposedly would work best with an arm of NEGATIVE mass, unfortunately there were few of these on the market. If you will check the compliance of modern MM cartridges you will see that the compliance has been reduced to a more practical level. I agree completely with Raul about matching arm and cartridge. I have a problem with putting a cartridge with a compliance of 50 in an arm of 20 g mass and thinking you will get the kind of sound the designers intended. The cartridges were intended to work in something like the Prichard wood arm which was low mass. The high mass arms were designed for either MCs or low compliance MMs. I go back to the days of the cartridge being thrown in for one cent extra so I am astonished at todays prices but I am not sure that using NOS cartridges is for everyone. |
Dear friends: Very good NOS B&O opportunity:
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Box-Bang-Olufsen-MMC2-Phono-Cartridge-Superb-/180555891783?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a09f84447#ht_772wt_1137
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul,
Interesting assumption there. I'll look forward to your feedback on the ADC 25 after you've familiarised yourself with the 20 series of course. Do remember Aolsala's tips on set up, they seemed to make a positive difference with the Point 4.
He's now go me interested in trying the ADC XLM and XLM II. Just need to come across a barely used one in an estate sale where they don't recognise its value. Could be some wait!
Cheers |
Dear friends: I think this one was a Pritchard design when he worked at GE ( before ADC. ), maybe one of you could have some interest on this cartridge design:
http://cgi.ebay.com/GE-RPX-046-VR-Cartridge-w-RPJ-003-003-Stylus-MIB-/260658201356?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cb070830c#ht_500wt_1154
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Jtgofish: +++++ " many MC cartridges sound refined and clear but lack vibrancy and musicality by comparison. " +++++
this is one of the main MM/MI cartridges characteristic and one of the advantages against the LOMC alternative.
As you noted that charecteristic that is exactly what almost all the people that like the MM/MI alternative noted too and that's why IMHO likes to them, including me.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: What you are hearing in the Point 4 is really an achievement because it is not only a very old cartridge but with a spheric stylus not the E version and for $5.00 the only thing you can ask is that: sounds/makes(noise)!
Btw, I want to hear all the ADC 20's family cartridges and I need some time to do it, certainly I will share my experiences about when I be ready for .
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul,
Do please let us have your impressions of the ADC 25 when you've had time.
Cheers |
Raul,
No need to apologise or insist. It's the Point 4. I've not given it enough time but I think it's an fine cartridge for its point in Pritchard's evolution. It casts a very large and sonorous sound stage, has a warm midrange and does that ADC voodoo with timbre. Maybe not as 'good' (here I use that comparitive term meaning, detailed and extended at the upper frequency extremes) as the Empire 1000 ZE/X but is in relation to that cartridge as the Empire is itself to the Technics 100Mk4.
Incidentally, I saw Downunder's honest reference to the Technics in his updated System's page. I wholeheartedly concur with his views that it is that good that your system is heard through the cartridge and have attested to the same within my own System's page. Limited only by partnering equipment and I dare say it's a quite different beast in the environment of each of us lucky owners. A truly great cartridge and (along with the Essential 3160) the tool for judging, adjusting and selecting every other component.
Although I'm no longer chasing any MM/MI cartridges, I will remain open to the occasional bargain and so the Sonus and your other suggestion might end up spinning on a TT near me. This seems increasingly likely given the constantly surprising kindness of fellow audiophiles and Agoners.
Cheers |
Dear Dgob: +++++ " the Point 4 and Point 4E. As you probably know, they share the same bodies and are interchangeable. " ++++
yes I know that. Sorry to insist: which one are you testing now: the Point 4 or the E version?
Thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgob: No I'm not interested ( yet ) in the Point 4.
I'm now trying to give a second opportunity to the ADC 25 ( that suppose was the better ADC/Pritchard design but the XLM II.
I have on hand the ADC 25 ( red and blue dot stylus. ), the 26 and the 27: all the that ADC line! I bought them at low pricew but nothing like your $ 5.00 Point 4!!!
This same designer designed the GE cartridges when he worked at GE. After that he found ADC and designed MM cartridges: 1, 2 and 3 denomination models.
Now that you own that Point 4 maybe could be a good idea to look for a Sonus Dimension 5 Calibrated that was the lattest Pritchard design and compare against his earliest ones.
I own the Dimension 5 that I already rated high and better than any ADC I heard it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul,
Thanks for the suggestion and I already know of several sources where you can find NOS styli for both the Point 4 and Point 4E. As you probably know, they share the same bodies and are interchangeable.
In line with your conversation with Timeltel, I could add that I'm using the Point 4 on an Audiocraft AC3300; albeit the 'LB' version of that tonearm. Really great with this and a very wide range of other high compliance cartridges.
Cheers |
Regards, Raul. Open discussions of damping, bearing friction and eff. mass were just beginning in 1975, as was the popular understanding of the impact on playback quality. Designs available to the high-end consumer seem to have followed innovation by perhaps two or so years, application continues to build on this groundwork today.
I selected these references since they were descriptive of the concerns being discussed here and were presented in an understandable manner, even for me. My apolgies if my previous post was vague, and as always your response and questioning was mannerly and, under those circumstances, very appropriate. |
Raul, great info between you and Timeltel, How about a few more arm suggestions at various price levels, that will work with all the cartridges we are talking about. New/Current and old, Jelco, SME etc... |
My mistake: ADC/Infinity were there way before 175.
Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: Thank's for your time.
My question comes because there are several reasons why what you point out can happen.
All your " references " not only makes sense but that's what in theory can/could happen and that's why the importance on tonearm bearing friction, tonearm damping build material, tonearm build execution quality, TT mat and obviously tonearm mass.
+++++ " producing a rising bass characteristic with distortion and mistracking, and whenever the resonance is below 10 Hz, disc defects such as warps and ripples will throw the arm into gross oscillation, thus producing severe variations in tracking pressure and dramatically reducing trackability. This results in distortion and a lack of detail. " +++++
how can we have a direct " relationship " between this statements and tonearm/cartridge subject " today "?
I have no doubt that in 1975 and before the " normal " tonearms of those times were build with maybe lesser care about because the market " demands " maybe does not ask for " more ".
At the end part of the 70's Grace, Audio Technica, Denon and Technics ( between others ) take the " flag " to " solve " many of those tonearm/cartridge playback related problems.
It is precisely at the end of the 70?s that appear the almost very first " high end " tonearms like Audio Technica: 1100, 1503 and 1010, Denon: DA-308, 309 and 401, Grace: G-1040 and 940, Exel ES-1000, Technics EPA-500, Stax UA-7, Lustre GST-801 ( dynamically balanced. ), SAEC's or ADC and Infinity ones.
All these tonearms has something in common: very low bearing friction that tonearms designs before 1975 did not and not only this but almost all those after 1975 tonearm designs comes with a high care on self tonearm damping on its build blend materials used.
All these " new " tonearm designers understand the huge importance of that J. Briton studies ( you posted ) along others one made for them to " solve " or put at minimum those problems. We can find from those times that Technics not only goes to 5mgrs figure in tonearm bearing friction but even design a dynamically damping tonearm mechanism ( EPA-100 ) that help about.
I own or owned almost all these tonearms along some today designs where through my experiences in almost none I detected problems that I discern comes because of tonearm effective mass mistmatch.
The build quality and care in those tonearm designs are really high and put at minimum distortions that happen and fortunatelly some of us can't detect even in a high resolution system.
You can read my post on the Audio magazyne review of the Ortofon MC2000 where the resonance frequency was as low as 5hz ( Technics EPA-250 tonearm ) and through all the review time the reviewer can't detect any single trouble because of that.
I posted too that with the Ortofon M20E Super and the tonearm where I test it the resonance frequency was as low as 4.3hz with a great quality performance.
I read somewhere that early ADC cartridge designs ( very high compliance ) was on purpose designed for 6hz resonance frequency.
I'm not diminished the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency subject or any thing you posted because even if some of us can't heard/detect " distortions ": " things " are happening.
In our tonearm design and mat design ( and now in our cartridge design too. We already start with. ) our main target is to " disappear " those kind of distortions and I can tell you that we IMHO already had/have success.
Anyway, an adding important issue to this dialog is that we point out and be aware of all those different factors ( between others. ) that have influence in the quality performance of any phono cartridge.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: Time for a very especial and hard to find in NOS Grace cartridge:
http://cgi.ebay.com/GRACE-F-9E-ll-cartridge-/290469962395?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a15be29b#ht_500wt_1154
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Acman3: Greetings, Danny. Please do refresh on the Signet when you find the time. I have one MR 5.0 "basic" stylus, four of the "E" model and even more of the "ME" (micro elliptical, nude mount). So many of the AM10 & 20's I feel somewhat guilty but they practically followed me home.
Tonight I've learned there is also a MR 5.0"ML", thanks to your post. Rumors of nude Shibata, titanium and berillium cantilevers too. I've indications the output for all MR 5.0 series are the same except for the slightly higher output "basic" but there is a difference in the coil windings I've not yet been able to pin down. I think so, anyway. A favorable comment would add impetus to my search. My residence is in Kentucky, just south of the currently steamy Ohio River and I thank you for your kind offer. |
Regards, Raul. You ask a simple question, to answer it requires your patience.
From authoritative sources:
"The net effect of a poor tonearm/cartridge combination, whenever a large undamped resonance falls within the audio band, is that oscillations may be excited by the recorded signals, producing a rising bass characteristic with distortion and mistracking, and whenever the resonance is below 10 Hz, disc defects such as warps and ripples will throw the arm into gross oscillation, thus producing severe variations in tracking pressure and dramatically reducing trackability. This results in distortion and a lack of detail.
Incorrect force, wether it is too low or too high, momentarially moves the cantilever out of it's optimum position. There may be repeated, if momentary, losses of contact with either or both groove walls and repeated instances at which force exceeds the bearing strength of groove walls."*
*James Brinton, Bureau Manager for the journal "Electronics", and President of the Boston Audio Society. Published in "High Fidelity" magazine, 1975.
"Let us consider the function of the tonearm. When the tonearm/cartridge system is in play, we wish to have the stylus tip follow the record groove and displace relative to the cartridge, generating an electrical signal. Meanwhile, the cartridge shell and tonearm should remain a fixed distance from the local mean record surface, riding the warps and other inaudible low frequency excitation as a cork might ride the waves on an ocean. Whether or not these objectives are achieved in any system is a function of the dynamics of the tonearm/cartridge mechanical system."*
*S.L. Phoenix, Assistant Prof., Sibley School of Mech. and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University.
"Any stylus cantilever motion not due to groove modulations is -or becomes- distortion in the cartridges output. The cartridge, after all, can't be expected to tell the difference between motion caused by the groove and that caused by the movement of the arm alone"*
*Bob Graham, article published by the Boston Audio Society, 1975.
What I make of this (and supported by observation and common sense) is that a tonearm can respond either too greatly or too little relative to the vertical and lateral displacement parameters of a cantilever. In case of a warp, the ability to recover from high velocity modulation or disturbance, excessive mass has the effect of driving the cantilever out of it's optimum position or slowing cantilever recovery. This may also have the outcome of the stylus plowing through groove modulations or excessive stylus wear. Tonearms of too little mass (relative to cartridge compliance) have their own set of concerns. Again, obviously. In extrapolating from the words of Mr. Graham, changes in the position of the cantilever are responsible for the generation of signal, wether due to groove modulation or tonearm motion.
It is perhaps urban legend and I do not have a written reference at this time but the reports of ADC XLM(1) and Sonus Blue Gold cantilevers pulled from their pivots by inappropriate tonearms are plentiful, the most frequent suspect was "Tonearm too heavy". I am personally aware of one instance with the original XLM. There are also reports of these cartridges spitting the cantilever out for no apparent cause.
Although it would be great if one could simply crunch numbers and determine from remote a certain cartridges specific response to a given tonearm, there have been too many agreeable combinations which when technically considered would be thought a mismatch. One does need to be very aware of potentially counterproductive tonearm and cartridge partnering when making this choice. Of course.
This is about as complicated an explanation as my simple mind can provide. Simplistically, signal is generated by the movement of the stylus/cantilever relative to the position of the tonearm. When they start going separate ways, it's not a good thing. Whatever the cause.
Raul, perhaps I should have been more specific in the post you've questioned, in respect of your expertise you are owed this explanation. My statement was a reference to tonearm induced distortion as a tonearm generated spurious signal.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Of course, you're welcome to agree or not. |
When I ordered a replacement stylus for my Empire 600LAC I also bought a new Stanton 681EEE cartridge. I set this up in VPI 10.5 tonearm/Technics SP10 with Kenata plinth and had a quick listen.I thought it sounded quite good but not a patch on the Empire. Since then I have set it up in a Grace 707 tonearm/Kenwood KD500 direct drive[one of the marble plinthed ones] and am astounded by how good it sounds. It is vastly better than that other budget wonder-the Denon 103.So many MC cartridges sound refined and clear but lack vibrancy and musicality by comparison. |
Timeltel, I have a Signet MR 5.0 ml.I had a me but suspension gave out, and replaced with supposedly better stylus. I used it from late 80's til a few years ago. I always enjoyed it but IMHO it is not as good as the cartridges mentioned in this thread.
I am going to install it on my table tonight and reconfirm. Where are you located? Maybe I can get it to you to see for yourself.
Danny |
Dear Dgob: Which ADC you own? the Point 4 or the Point four E that comes with an elipthical stylus instead spheric.
Btw, Adelcom seems to me have on sale both original stylus for the Point 4.
THis ADC cartridge is really old: 1963! ( I think )
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Addendum,
Sorry, should have noted that the most obvious features that stood out on my initial 5 hours of playing the ADC was its timbre and sound stage. These are what made for a very interesting comparison with the Empire. |
Aolsala adnn Timeltel,
Just started to audition the ADC Point 4 and, straight off, I have been surprised by what $5 can get you!! I think Aolsala is correct that they perform best with copper leads and phono' cables. Need more time to get over the shock and newness of it and then to give my critical faculties familiarisation time before making any fully qualititative assessments but it's very promising at this point. I'd say that its got something special (not surprising for ADC cartridges maybe but), even when heard on the back of playing the Empire 1000 ZE/X!?
Stay tuned |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " a tonearm not suited to the cartridge (by reason of mass or bearing friction) will cause the cantilever to move outside of its optimal position. This results in the cartridge percieving a false signal generated by inertial/momentum.... " ++++++
sorry my ignorance but: which or where are the " foundations " that could confirm these statements?
antiskating, stylus near its life end, wrong set up, bad tonearm damping, even just a bad tracker cartridge or a combination of these factors could shows what you are telling too.
IMHO there are a lot of things that are not very clear on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Raul. It seems to me that from simply observing audible and visual cues one can determine if the tonearm is appropriate for the cartridge in use.
Just as over-damping of a low mass tonearm will result in excessive flexing of the cantilever and result in audible tracing or tracking problems, a tonearm not suited to the cartridge (by reason of mass or bearing friction) will cause the cantilever to move outside of its optimal position. This results in the cartridge percieving a false signal generated by inertial/momentum induced tonearm movement (or failure to follow the groove) and not from the recording. Excessive wear of the the stylus and vinyl are likely, damage to delicate suspensions is also a possible consequence. This applies, of course, to the discussion of high compliance cartridges.
Resonance concerns aside, your advice to try it and see lacks the specificity we are seeking but is most appropriate. Your comment on the position of the counterweight is also noteworthy. IMO, best audible results occur when, with proper VTF applied, the weight is approximately midway between the extremes of available adjustment. Headshell weight and composition, TA mass, bearing friction, to damp or not, cartridge weight, isolation and compliance are all "points of interest" on the road to good audio. Like a Key West waterfront juggling act, one just can't know how it'll come out until it's done!
Signet. Anyone? |
|
Timeltel,
Many thanks for your curteous help. I've resolved the issue now and the adhesive label that you reference is the cause. The 1000 ZE/X also has a round stylus fixing pin in contrast to the 999 series and their diamond shaped ones.
The 1000 ZE/X is interesting and better than the earlier model that I had exchanges would have led me to believe. Although it doesn't scale the heights of the Technics 100Mk4 or Glanz G5, it is a quite detailed performer and great fun.
Good luck with the Signet data search and I shall of course contact you if I come upon any related info.
As always |
Dear Lewm: In those times IMHO more than " brag " about was at least to things: first a " fierce " competence in the cartridge and tonearm market and second maybe those designers not only take care about but thinks that the tonearm bearing friction was an important subject and something to disclose for the customers were aware about.
I'm sure that all tonearm today designers take care about, the question is: why choose not disclose it?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Yes, I was aware of the Garrot. I think all those MM/MI cartridges you own are really great.
Btw, I'm sure that all of us right now are already waiting for your Empire's reviews!!
regards and enjoy the msuic, Raul. |
Dear Wayne: Tonearm bearing friction is important factor/target in any tonearm design and IMHO has main influence during playback in either cartridge compliance.
I posted several times that whatever cartridge we have ( regarding compliance ) we can try in the tonearm we own whatever the tonearm effective mass and heard/hear it.
I tested several cartridges/tonearms with out cares about effective mass/compliance and till today I can think was ok for me.
I'm not saying that it is not important the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency because it is but I think that we are worried to much on it and maybe we have to put our " thinking/effort " on opther important tonearm/cartridge subjects.
I posted that the resonance frequency tonearm/cartridge " figure " is a point to start but not the one that decide my final " road ".
In the other side, if we analize the tonearm/resonance calculation formula/equation we can see that we need the manufacturer Tonearm Effective Mass value:
we take it from the tonearm manual specs and here emerge an important question? ( at least important to me ):
in what place/position the tonearm manufacturer " put " the tonearm counterweight to calculate the tonearm effective mass?
the tonearm counterweight is the heaviest weight that counts in the effective mass calculations. If the counterweight was/is at the very " front "/nearest to the tonearm pivot ( where the counterweight effective mass is at minimum. ) we have a tonearm effective mass that is IMHO not real because in no cartridge/tonearm set up the counterweight is in that position.
If we move the counterweight at a more " real " position the tonearm effective mass is different and not for 0.3grs but maybe for 2-4grs due to the high counterweight weight.
Those differences in grs. in the real tonearm effective mass makes a difference in the resonance frequency calculations that could goes over 2hz-3hz.
So we really don't have a precise/accurate tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency value. To this fact we have to think/add that the cartridge/tonearm " react " not in a static way ( tonearm/cartridge in rest. No playback. ) but when are in playback through a recording.
Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I think about and my advise is that you make what I'm make and made about in the last 10+ years: forget that tonearm/cartridge resonance " figure " because TODAY we can't be sure if the value that comes out from those calculations is TRUE and if really has and makes a " difference " for the better: how can we hear/heard or discern ( and be sure. ) a quality performance change due in specific to that tonearm/cartridge resonance " figure? .
I'm aware that the subject has its self importance level and that's why we in our tonearm self design are on the research to choose a tonearm effective mass that can put " calm " in my brain it does not matters the cartridge characteristics.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul.
|
Dgob: The best information I can offer comes from Empire Sci.: Empire states all styli fit all cartridges within that family. Specifically listed are the 1000/900 series. Empire cautions that although the cartridges can be upgraded through the styli, the cartridge retains it's character.
Perhaps of greater help, output voltage for the 1000Z/EX is given at 5.0mv., 999V/EX, 999T/EX @ 6.0mv. The 999S/EX, 99E/X, 909E/X and the 90E/X @ 8.0mv output.
Some Empires in this range have the cartridge designation printed on an adhesive film label. Perhaps your example came with similar identification but it has fallen off?
Anyone familiar with Signet cartridges? Information/opinion specific to the AM (Analog Master) or MR (Maximum Resolution) versions would be appreciated. I've happened onto a number of NOS stylii for these, the AM20 (nude minature elliptical) is very nice but I've not been able to find a cartridge for the MR 5.0 (5.0 basic, 5.0-e and 5.0-mr) series for which I now have a redundancy of styli. Packaging for some are the Signet U.S.A. label, others show AT, made in Japan as the source. Apparently these, as well as the OC-9 and the 440-ML were Signet designs and continued by AT when Signet was purchaced by them in the ?early 90's?. Thanks in advance for any information. |
Wayne, I would say "no" to your question, if you want to make rules. As a rule, the need to match cartridge compliance with tonearm effective mass is still valid, but it is obvious from everyone's experience that there ARE other factors at play (e.g., the difficulty of measuring actual compliance under dynamic conditions, the other elements of tonearm design) that sometimes result in good sound from unlikely tonearm/cartridge partners. Anyway, really, the compliance/mass thing only applies to determining the resonant frequency, which only needs to be within a fairly wide acceptable range. After that, everything else (e.g., bearing friction, apparently) counts. So the bottom line I would live by is that if there is any reasonable possibility of a match, try it. |
Thanks Raul, Situation corrected although I did have the Garrott P77 listed. The Empire 4000D/III Gold is everything you describe in your review...and perhaps even more. I intend to add reviews of both it and the 1000ZE/X in due course, which are quite different to each other yet offer insights into vinyl reproduction which seem to elude most LOMC cartridges? |
Raul, interesting information on bearing friction. But are we saying that a low compliance lightweight catridge, that would have probably been use on a 5-10 g arm mass, can be used on a 20g or higher mass arm, if it has a lower bearing friction ?
Wayne |
Back in the old days, tonearm-makers did make it a point to brag about low friction bearings, just as cartridge makers used to enclose a frequency response graph along with each cartridge. |
Dear Lewm: Like you almost all audiophiles are totally unaware of the bearing friction " figure " in their tonearms and this fact is mainly because the tonearm manufacturers almost no one disclose that information.
In the other side we audiophiles really does not care about because we never had reasons to be aware and almost never no one speaks about. I really was unaware of its importance either.
I take real " conscience " on this pivot tonearm bearing friction important subject when I decided to design a pivot tonearm and latter on because these MM/MI alternative.
I think that we all make for " done " that the tonearm bearing friction is no single issue with our cartridge/tonearm quality performance and today I know that's not totally true.
Anyway, an additional analog audio subject to think about.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Downunder: Thak's for your kindness.
Maybe you already know, my thoughts on that subject comes because other persons that I know they own ( by personal recommendation. ) vintage MM/MI cartridges does not list in their virtual systems. I'm talking on M.Lavigne, Doug, Vetterone(S.Doobins. ), etc, etc. Even and like you Halcro does not list his beloved Empire.
I know that some of them ( like you ) maybe have no time ( camera ) or is not important to do it or even they don't want to disclose these " humble gems " because maybe that could goes against their " personal image ".
Anyway, only my thoughts and every one makes what he likes, no problem about.
I'm proud of every single audio link in my audio system.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Jtgofish: The 600LAC is a good Empire cartridge ( like almost all Empire's. ).
I never heard the LPgear stylus replacement and I think there is no SAS replacement for the 600LAC.
If you are going to buy a stylus replacement maybe is better to go with the original one. You can find here:
http://www.adelcom.net/EmpireStylus1.htm
or here:
http://www.pickupnaald.nl/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=296
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Not to be a nitpicker, Raul, but the data you quote say "less than" 50mg for the bearing friction of a DV507. This means to me that there is some sample to sample variation but that the value is always "less than" 50mg. However, one hopes that is a very conservative statement, because that's a fair amount of friction for a high end tonearm. |
Raul, I have not updated a few items. have a look now, you should be happier :-)
I gotta get a camera for the others |
Some sad news: Kevin at KABUSA informed me that he has sold the last of his stock of NOS Stanton D22E/Pickering D3001E 0.2x0.7 elliptical styli. I just spent a few hours comparing these with the NOS stereohedrons and JICO shibata replacements using both Pickering XSV5000 and Stanton 981HZS bodies. These ellipticals sound nearly indistinguishable from the much costlier stereohedrons, preferable with some music. I regret not having given them a better listen when stock was available. At $79 they were an absolute steal. |