Van den Hul never produced any stylus. But he deed design 3 kinds for Gyger and ''obviously'' stipulated by contract the right to sell them under his own brand name. However we have never heard about Van den Hul I, II and S while Gygers are so marked. The first two (I &2) were difficult to produce (aka ''polish'') so the they settled on the ''S'' . Benz used the ''S'' for a ong time byt recently moved to the ''micro ridge'' while, as far as I know, Allearts still uses the ''S''. The ''Gyger story'' was told in the German Magazine ''LP''. Van den Hul desribed his styli dimensions elswhere . I am not impressed by the styli shapes. Anyway I am not able to ''deduce'' enything from this , say, ''criterion''. I am very fond of FR-7 kinds the most of which have conical stylus. I am also very impressed by Andreoli's Magic Diamond which is also provided with conical stylus. Then I own Sony XL 88 and 44 L which use ''super elliptical'' (Raul is very fond of the 44 btw) . Then I own different Kiseki's (the Blue, the Silverspot and the Goldspot) which all use ''super elliptical''. And last but not least the Miyabi Standard with aluminum cantilever while I have no idea nor do I care what kind of stylus this one has. |
As someone who had his Grace Ruby rebuilt by SS with their OCL tip, I can attest that indeed the new stylus shape (or something else attendant to the rebuild) has made for a very noticeable improvement in the performance of the cartridge. For a "control", I own a second Grace Ruby that still has its original elliptical stylus. I was a big fan of the OEM Ruby, until I listened to the OCL-retipped version. Be forewarned that it takes 20-40 hours before the re-tip starts to really sing, however. At first, within the first few hours, I really had my doubts. |
Unfortunalety i don’t know the exact size of the Grace F-9U or F-9F diamond tip, but what i know for sure from the Grace documents (see page 2 of this doc. in description in the upper right corner) is that those styli are not the Elliptical like F-9E. The Grace called them "Shibata Type" (for F-9F) and "Elliptical Line Contact" (for F-9U). If anyone has original manual for f-9u or f-9f or any other catalog with provided stylys tip size please post it. I’m not trying to say that my F-9U or F-9F are the best cartridges ever. I’m just tryin’ to say they are rare and not widely available as conventional F-9E model, the styli on F-9U and F-9F are different from elliptical (the cantilevers are the same). I think for Rubby SoundSmith rebuild service is the way to go (with his optimized line contact), because the original Grace Ruby is Elliptical. Grace own "Shibata Type" (F-9F) and "Elliptical Line Contact" (F-9U) makes those two models very special. Only two Grace models comes with better stily than the elliptical in the whole F9 series of carts. And only Level II and F-14 models are better in this regard. Now let’s check more from SoundSmith website: PROPORTIONS
of the
SHIBATA design 6 x 75 um - Shibata "large" design 6 x 50 um - Shibata "small" design Rather than providing a small circular "dot" contact point with the groove, the more complex shape of the Shibata allowed a long vertical line of contact to be achieved with the groove wall. The result of contacting more of the groove wall was the achievement of the two primary goals. Through better wall contact tracking was improved and information retrieval improved (facilitating higher frequencies), and because the total contact surface area increased, the amount of pressure per square area was substantially reduced - less pressure equals less wear on both the record and the stylus. In actual fact the side radius of the Shibata is about the same as a 0.2 mil elliptical - so theoretically they have the same ability to trace high frequencies, but the elliptical only ever contacts the same small area - which can become worn - resulting in degradation in high frequencies. Playing back a record with a Shibata stylus which has been worn with a conical or elliptical stylus can result in near pristine sound - this is because the Shibata shape can "read" the groove wall in areas that were not contacted by the simpler stylus shapes. After the release of the Shibata, various competitors developed very similar shapes which were (and are) marketed under various names: Hyper Elliptical (various sizes!) Stereohedron 0.3 x 2.8 mil / 7 x 72 um LINE CONTACT (VARIOUS SIZES) Fine Line 8 x 40 um These are all much the same. EXOTIC STYLI: The next development was driven by a designer called Van Den Hull in Holland - using computer analysis he developed a stylus shape which replicated the head of the cutter used to make the original vinyl masters as closely as possible, while reducing the side radius further. This meant two things: 1) the reduction in side radius reduced distortion and improved tracking of the high frequencies, and 2) the increase in the length of the contact patch further reduced wear and increased longevity of stylus and record. This led to the next wave of stylus shapes, again known by various names: Micro Line 2.5 x 75 um Micro Ridge 3.8 x 75 um VanDenHull 4 x 70 um FritzGeiger 5 x 70 um SAS 2.5 x 75 um Paratrace 4 x 70 um P.S. I just checked the manual for my Stanton CS-100 WOS and realized the stereohedrom II stylys tip on this signature model is "something special" 5.3 x 76 which is slightly different from "large shibata", or like an extended FritzGeiger. The cantilever is sapphire coated. |
Dear @lewm : Agree with you, stylus is only one important part of the overall cartridge design. The cantilever build material and shape is other way important factor on the quality level performance in any cartridge.
Yes, agree too that the @chakster Grace information is very informative for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Hi chakster, The Azzura is ordered by Glanz but there is no reference to any Glanz model. However I own the manual provided by my Glanz 31 L. According to which the most versions have the same generator. That is to say that the only difference is the stylus and complience. You can try the stylus of your 31 l in the Azzura and ''see'' if you can hear any difference. I got two samples from my Italian friend Valerio for free. My comrade Don got one and you the other as present. I never tested this one because I owned all Glanz top carts. |
Dear Chakster, Your dissection of the lineage of Grace cartridges is very informative. Thank you for that. But you imply strongly that one can know how a cartridge will sound based on knowledge of its stylus shape. One would only wish this were true. It would make this disease of audiophilia much easier to treat,
|
@nandric thanks Nikola, your Azzurra Esoter aka Glanz has arrived. I've never seen the original box with manual, it looks nice. |
Dear @chakster : In those old times anything diferent from elliptical stylus tip was named " line contact or extended " till appeared the patented Shibata stylus tip. This is to say true Shibata shape not " Shibata type ". Audio technica used the 0.2 x 0.7 elliptical shape and true Shibata on its top of the line models and with both stylus tip you can enjoy the 4-channel recordings because I did it with. This looks as an offical grace catalogue, even comes in japanese language and you can't read any single reference to true Shibata stylus tip: https://www.vinylengine.com/library/grace/stereo-pickups.shtml Shibata type does not means true Shibata stylus shape. In the other side: """
So why wasting time with elliptical versions of Grace if there are plenty of much better options? """ but not only with Grace but by other vintage manufacturers. Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Chakster, Who else used a .2 x .7 mil elliptical for 4-ch. ? Regards, |
@fleib AFAIK, Grace was the only company to use a .2 x .7 mil elliptical for 4-ch tracing. That minor radius is sufficient for required high frequency reproduction. It is not true, look at the official grace product catalog with all the models including F-9F and F-9U. On the second page in the right upper corner is clearly stated that F-9F is SHIBATA TYPE. You can also check this japanese website (translated with google) to find out that both F-9F and F-9U styli are elliptical LINE CONTACT (while the F-9F even described as light weight elliptical LINE CONTACT and it was the most expensive grace cartridge in 1975, the price was 25000 Yen). |
Dear Fleib, ''It's interesting to compare properties of the various cantilevers now available''. J. Carr was talking in general about properties relevant for the cantilevers. I.e. about advantages and disadvantages of different mateials. In this context he stated that the advantage of aluminum (alloy) is the fact that the stylus can be pressure fitted while in all other the stylus must be glued. However all cart producers are dependant from styli/cantilever producer which are very few at present. As you mentioned so often in the 80is much more superiour cantilevers were produced then at present. Not only (tubed) beryllium but also ''tubed'' boron pipes were made. Neither is available at present. One can see variations of sapphire cantilevers but Carr deed not like them. He deed not like how they sound but should also have objective reasons in the sense of properties reg. the question why. I , for example, noticed that he uses the same boron/stylus combo as Benz by LP S and Ruby 3. I own many MC from the 80is with thiner cantilevers than at present available. The paradox is then that we see astronomical prices for carts with mediocre cantilevers. |
Chakster, AFAIK, Grace was the only company to use a .2 x .7 mil elliptical for 4-ch tracing. That minor radius is sufficient for required high frequency reproduction. Beryllium was phased out in early '80s due to highly toxic dust. It's interesting to compare properties of the various cantilever types now available. I believe J Carr helped us out with this information around 30 pages ago. Regards, |
Dear @bimasta: ""
I don't think Raul likes me... ""
From where or why did you take " that "? , never mind the only kind of persons I don't like it are the dishonest/lier ones.
The earlier P8ES and the latest one P25MD share exactly the same kind of design on that subject you are talking about but the P25MD is a little better performer because its Analog 6 unique stylus shape.
The Nova VDH II came out to the market 4 years after the 25MD.
I own a lot of AKG ones , including the top P100 LE, many of them out of work because its suspension problem but I have in good condition the one you own, the P25MD and the Nova VDH 2.
Some people try to find out the Nova thinking is a better performer but it's not. The 25MD with its Analog 6 stylus performs at the same level and overall I prefer it over the Nova.
As I said all these models share the TS AKG design.
Now, """
then the only information transmitted to our amps and speakers will be the vibrations in the stylus directly caused by the groove modulations, and no other extraneous movements or causes. ""
"""
it strikes me a truly novel approach, possibly a breakthrough .. """
I agree with your second statement and " so so " with the first one because one thing is that we can detect the cantilever macroscopic movements and the other is what in reality is happening down there: stylus tip/grooves tracking where exist the more hardest " forces "/movements we can even imagine including that side to side ones.
Ovbiously that The AKG TS design try to put at minimum that kind of generation distortion movements and with out doubt this is something really good for us.
In the other side, today or past cartridge designers/builders is for sure they knew this kind of design and maybe they did not gave the need it importance for its designs or maybe becuase can goes against his own cartridge design.
I like AKG.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
|
I’d like to get back to discussion about wonderful Grace cartridges. I’m a bit surprised to discover (sorry i’m late) that popular Ruby version of F9 has conventional elliptical profile, same as F-9E. So the difference between F-9E and F9-E Ruby is just the cantilever and more attractive design/look of the Ruby sylus replacement assembly compared to others. When the Grace invented their superb F14 BE / LC-OFC series (unfortunately only to sell in Japan in 1984) it was based on F9 generator (later improved in LC-OFC models), but supplied with the most advanced styli (Micro Ridge) and the most expensive cantilevers (Boron along with Sapphire and Ruby). In the earlier versions of the F-14 BR/MR Grace used rare Ceramic and beryllium cantilevers. I wish i could find them. Here is a link with full info about grace cartridges. However, even in F-9 seriers Grace already used the most advanced styli, but ONLY in two models: Grace F-9F (Shibata / Discrete 4) and Grace F-9U (Line Contact, Utility 4). So why search for overpriced Ruby if it was just elliptical? Why pay to SoundSmith for his line contact if the original Utility 4 Grace F-9U is in fact Line Contact I have both F-9F and F-9U, but i will keep only one, here is another picture of my F-9U and here is a picture of the line contact stylus of my NOS F-9U. Between the F-9 and F-14 grace has improved F-8 series by inventing Level II models (based on F8 generator) and athe best of LEVEL II cartridges supplied with Micro Ridge styli on Beryllium, Sapphire, Ruby and Aluminum cantilevers. Level II cartidges also devided by MR/MR and LC-OFC. So why wasting time with elliptical versions of Grace if there are plenty of much better options? |
Hi bimasta, While I think that Raul is very sensitive for flattering he is even more interested in demonstrating his knowledge and believe in distortions. So it should not matter if he likes you or not . The paradox is the amount of contributions in his own thread. He can't react at all of them. Even the Mexican needs some sleep. |
Thanks Nandric, Raul is indeed a master, his knowledge encyclopedic, he started this marvelous voyage of discovery and keeps it going with his frequent contributions — but I don't think Raul likes me...
|
Hi bimasta, You should ask Raul about specifics regarding AKG carts. He knows the most about them. He also owns the best ever AKG which is produced in very limited numbers. I am not aware that those have any suspension problem. Alas those are impossible to get second hand. |
Thanks Nandric for the additional history. I didn't bother to mention the problem with the elastomer part of the suspension because I'm far more intrigued by the knife-edge concept.
I bought one of these AKGs NOS a few years ago, and you're right, the rubber grommet, or O-Ring (or whatever it's made of) part of the suspension had hardened to stone. It went from high-compliance to no-compliance. Unplayable, it would not track a groove.
But I mostly fixed that problem, by finding a way to restore flexibility. It now plays, and even sounds fairly good, with fine detail retrieval. Because it's at least basically functional now, I'm able to see that the cantilever is never dragged from side to side, which I see happen with other high compliance cartridges.
It's not 100%, it lacks dynamics compared to my better MI/MM carts, as if it's still constrained. Here's a bad analogy, but it's like a man whose legs were paralyzed, but after lots of rehab he can now walk a bit, but not run or dance.
I'll continue the rehab and see if it gets better. But it's not a priority, merely curiosity — I like to fix things.
But the "knife-edge" is an unrelated question. It really intrigues me. If it works as intended, it strikes me a truly novel approach, possibly a breakthrough — assuming other parts of the cartridge worked properly.
That's the reason I posted about it. I'm talking about it in principle, not about its inclusion in a cartridge that had other, unrelated problems.
The idea of eliminating extraneous random movements from the cantilever (a principle we strive for in our tonearms) should produce greater accuracy. The fact that AKG's implementation was flawed by its poor choice of a peripheral material does not invalidate the theory.
The Space Shuttle Columbia exploded because one little O-ring turned hard and failed — that didn't prove space flight is impossible.
The Super Nova version, so highly praised in these pages, must not have the O-ring problem (which my original P8ES did) or it wouldn't even play, much less sound so good. Does anyone know if it also uses the knife edge design? In all other respects its appears totally different from the original P8ES, using a P25MD body and stylus carrier.
I'm just curious, and hoping someone has more knowledge...
|
AKG closed its cart production and destroyed their whole stock of carts and parts in order to avoid liabilty . The suspension material was not resistant to environmemental influences so there are hardly any samples without defective suspension. However Axel Schurholz, the well known retipper , offered repair for some of the AKG versions. While I still own 3 samples of those AKG's I never try Axel's offerings. Van den Hul styli which were used for the ''top AKG's'' are only available by Van den Hul who does not offer repair for AKG 's. However Gyger styli are identical with Van den Huls because those are(were) made by Gyger. Axel's price for the Gyger 2 is around 500 euro. This explains my reluctance to mess with AKG.
|
I’m seeking opinions on the AKG P8ES cartridge, an MI design, not MM. It’s not the "Super Nova" version with the VDH II stylus, which is a favorite here — it’s elliptical, and its minor-radius is the same as the VDH II, so it’s highly resolving of fine detail, though I can’t compare them. The cartridge body is also completely different visually from the Nova, which uses a quite different P25MD body. I can’t post pictures, but an image search will show both cartridges, and their obvious differences.
I don’t know if this cartridge been discussed here before; this great thread is as long as the Mahabharata and I lose track.
The cantilever of my P8ES has a "knife edge bearing" — namely, a tiny hole is drilled horizontally through the cantilever, a tiny rod is inserted through the hole and firmly secured at both ends. Thus the stylus can rotate vertically around this fixed pivot to cope with warps, but (theoretically) cannot swing side to side.
I can see this clearly in action on a pivoted tonearm: there is no side-to-side cantilever "shimmy" even on off-center LPs, which other cartridges visibly do.
I’ve never seen this "knife edge" in any other cartridge, but I’m no expert.
AKG claims: "This knife edge effect virtually eliminates all axial shifting of the pivot point, enabling the stylus tip to relay to the moving iron armature, with maximum accuracy, all information received from the record groove modulation, evenly and independent of directional movement. Thus, any frequency-dependent distortion of directional information is eliminated."
This seems to me, and again I’m no expert, a very intriguing design, and gives to the cantilever the same kind of rigidity we expect of our tonearms. We don’t tolerate loose, "sloppy" bearings in our arms, nor the distortions and inaccuracies they cause — but our cantilevers are indeed rather loose and sloppy in comparison.
If AKG’s claims are true, then the only information transmitted to our amps and speakers will be the vibrations in the stylus directly caused by the groove modulations, and no other extraneous movements or causes.
One more time: I’m no expert — but many of you are. I would love to know your views on this, and your experience.
|
fleib, thanks for this. All of the old Ortofon spec sheets and marketing materials that I've seen list the 20FL and 20E as 20 cu and 40 cu respectively.
|
40 cu ? It's about half that amount. Regarding reliability problems with vintage Unitrac and my Sonus Formula 4 - batches of defective returns were found and sold as NOS to unsuspecting consumers. I had to replace the bakelite (?) cueing platform on the Sonus. With a custom headshell it's an excellent low mass arm. Unitrac arms which have been in continuous service have no such problem. Matter of fact, the arm was recommended to me by Win Timmon (mosin), maker of Saskia turntable. This is probably the world's greatest idler. If you can find a functional Unitrac, the only modification to improve performance (besides a tricky rewire) would be to eliminate the wire connector at the back of the headshell and solder clips onto the wires. The arm also has VTA on the fly - a necessity for me. I don't know of a low mass Brit arm that is quite as good. You can get nice results with the SME, but I suspect even better results with a newer model. I think it's a 309 with a removable headshell and comes in 2 or 3 different lengths. If any of this is confusing, I'll be glad to explain. Regards, |
Thanks f. I went ahead and purchased the arm I was considering. It has never been mounted so I am optimistic that it's ok. I had considered the Unitrac but was scared off by some talk of a burr that was causing wire fraying. Others reported no issues what so ever so who knows. I'm hoping this arm pairs up well with my M20E (40 cu)' we'll see. |
Smctigue1, You might have trouble finding a SME III in great condition. Do you know how to take a quick check of the vertical bearings? It was a popular low mass arm back in the day, but has a bad reputation among the audiofool crowd using low cu carts. It's a bit tricky to set up with spring loaded VTF, but if you divide the force between spring and gravity you can get some nice results. Low mass arms went out of favor in the '80s with the MC. I like the Unitrac arm. It's 7g eff mass. Is a Moerch within budget? Regards,
|
Hello Lew, I never made an adaptor for the B&O. I did find a nice Bulgin gold-plated copper tag that perfectly mates with the thin pins on a P-mount cartridge. If you need that part number I can retrieve it from my files. |
Raul or Dave, Can you send me a photo of your adapted B&O, via email? I am not sure I know exactly what you did. |
Thanks for the tip, Raul. As you guessed, I have been so far reluctant to alter the B&O hardware, in case I want to sell. However, SS will make an adapter for ~$50. Maybe I'll buy one and mutilate that to get rid of connectors. I admit I am very curious about the MMC1, based on your testimony and that of many others as to its excellence.
|
Has anybody had experience with a SME III tonearm? I am thinking of trying one with my M20E and TK7LCa. |
@lewm : Something that I did not do it but that you can is: due that the B&O use a dedicated ( not universal type. ) adapter some one at your place can machine with aluminum an open adapter that only can hold the tiny MMC1 cartridge body and in this way you don't have to destroy the B&O adapter.
It's worth to try it, the B&O MMC1 and 2 are better quality performers than many of the latest posts where those gentlemans touted other cartridges .
R. |
@lewm : Yes I have to " destroy the adapter drilling inside. I owned 3 adapters, two of them I bougth in ebay stand alone. Of course that if you don't have a second adapter and you want to put on sale in the future then there is a problem for that.
R. |
Dear @lewm : I think that my post about was unclear.
Because I think exactly like you and in those " old " times what I did it not only with the B&O and other plug-in cartridges type ( like the Technics 100C MK4, Azden and the like. ) is to by-pass the female connectors of the universal adapter, this is take out totally from the adapter and changed the normal headshell female wires connectors for a thinnest ones that if I remember @dgarretson found out somewhere.
With that you have direct tigth connection between the cartridge thin pins and the tonearm: no more adapter female connectors.
I tested all my plug-in cartridges with out those adapter connectors.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
@bimasta But if you’re right, and there’s an old model Shure with low compliance, a clear departure from their standard design principle, then I’d certainly like to learn more about it! Yes, it is probably a BIG low compliance (9cu) classic broadcast SHURE M3D with Alnico magnets and tracking force range from 3 to 5g like SPU. Some people love it and use it on heavy tonearms like Schick, so the SME 3012 disctributed in USA by SHURE in the 60s/70s might be a good shoice with this special heavier Shure/SME headshell. |
I own the 20 CL and 6000. The 6000 is the only B&O with berylium cantilever and ''unbelievable'' technical performance. Next to this adapter B&O produced an headshell with the same in-klik provision as by the adapter. However there are no other adjustment possibilites while the headshell is too short . The intriguing question is how is it possible that the same company which produced such delicate carts can produce such worthless ''connectors''. |
Raul, With my NOS B&O MMC1, in the same original box, there is an NOS B&O adapter which makes it possible to use the cartridge on non P-mount tonearms, like almost every tonearm except the ones made by B&O. The pins are very thin, which is good for good sound but not good for a solid interface between the cartridge and the adapter. So, if you think the signal, traveling via pins to the adapter then via the adapter to the arm wand then via a DIN connector or the like to the plugs at the phono input, and with 2 flexible joints in the path, is relatively unsullied nevertheless, I can only hope you are correct. It just doesn't appeal to me. |
I'm not sure, Chakster, when you say that just because Shure put its name on the headshell alongside SME, that it was necessarily intended for a specific Shure cartridge. They knew SME arms were used worldwide with many different cartridges, and they were glad to have the U.S. distributorship for the world's best-selling tonearm. I think they were just branding it as a Shure product.
But if you're right, and there's an old model Shure with low compliance, a clear departure from their standard design principle, then I'd certainly like to learn more about it!
After all, Stanton produced a low-output MM, along with a great head-amp, and that was a radical change from their usual practice. Maybe Shure started thinking along the same lines.
If the new Stanton did inspire Shure to experiment, I'd like to know the year Stanton introduced that low-output model, because maybe a little later Shure released its new model. A Shure catalogue from that period might shed some light.
Another mystery in the annals of analogue! More detective work.... or maybe somebody here knows.
|
chakster Maybe you can help me with some information Thats what I get for not looking at the foto's closer. The angled front is the first clue, as bimasta mentioned better than the swiss cheese model. |
@totem395 The fact it has the Shure logo in addition to the SME indicates it was sold into the USA market as Shure was the early SME distributor in that region.
You do own a some what rare series 1 SME 3012 if I recall. I think 500 were built and differ from the later 3012’s. thanks for the info about this rare SME / SHURE S.3 headshell, now i can find just a few more pictures with similar shell mounted on SME 3012. It is definitely metal headshell, not bakelite. Since the mass of this solid shell is higher than regular sme shell with holes, it must be dedicated headshell for sertain Shure (low compliance?) cartridge. Which one? @bimasta
Thanks for sending that picture, Chakster. I always learn something new on this forum.
Me too. So only 500 made. |
Chakster, I've never seen that headshell. If I ever do, I'll buy it (price permitting), though it has no overhang adjustments. I'm pretty sure it's metal, not bakelite: its edges appear to be thin: not possible with bakelite, it would break too easily.
The familiar old SME shell, perforated with a million holes, was designed to be ultra-low-mass for ultra-high-compliance carts. It was made of ultra-thin aluminum, with an ultra-thin fingerlift. It worked well: high-compli stylus assemblies do not transmit much vibration to the cartridge bodies.
When low-compliance MCs began to dominate (late '70s-early '80s), they didn't work so well in the old SME arms. Critics blamed the knife-edge bearings, saying the stylus vibrations traveled along the armtube and were so forceful they made the knife-edge "rattle".
I never bought that theory. I'll give an analogy...
If I'm a detective and I find a corpse with a bullet hole in its heart, and standing right over it is a person the corpse was married to with a smoking gun in hand, I'm going to make the prima facie deduction that person is the killer. I'm not going to look for a killer much farther away with a much more distant relationship to the deceased.
The old SME shell with all its holes and ultra-thin metal parts resonates like crazy. And low compliance MCs do transmit vibrations to their bodies, which are transferred to the headshell, and then sent back into the cartridge body. This creates a rat's nest of vibrations back and forth and filled with phase anomalies. And it's all audible.
And the headshell is 'married' to the cartridge by two tight bolts: there's no gap between them, not even .0001mm.
The knife-edge is 290mm away from the scene of the crime. The headshell is the culprit, not the bearing.
I've proven this, at least to my satisfaction...
a) I use a thicker, heavier, less-resonant headshell b) This requires more mass at the other end for balance, so I add to the counterweight — I have some thick stainless steel washers which weigh 25g each; they're highly polished and the exact same diameter as the c'weight and they look really good, not an awkward kludge, but like it was designed that way c) Combined, they increase the total mass of the arm, and seriously load the knife-edge with more weight, to prevent any potential 'rattling'.
Otherwise, my old 3009 is totally standard. I've used it with several low-compliance MCs and they all sound fine.
These mods are simple. And reversible.
Thanks for sending that picture, Chakster. I always learn something new on this forum.
|
If anyone has any experience on both Z1S & F-9E : What can I expect by changing from boron to sapphire? Since I’ve already have a (cantilever less) F-9E ,could it be wise to prefer the OCL? Is there any chance to possibly exceeds the Z1S ? Dear geoch, I have both the Z1S and F-9E and whilst the Grace is very, very good.....I can't say it's up to the Victor Z1/SAS. Be happy with the boron SAS..... You won't better it with the sapphire or ruby...😎 Regards |
|
Chazro, you must have purchased a "Sonata" with a Mexican jumping bean in it. I just traded my Sonata in for a Grado Master 2; that's how satisfied I was with the Sonata.
I honestly believe that many audiophiles have so adjusted to the artificiality of MC cartridges that they can not stand the smooth natural sound of Grado.
|
|
I think the question of loading options might need some clarification. In general, a HO cart will afford the ability to "tune" the cart. A LO cart does not give you that flexibility. FR remains the same regardless of load. If you hear mid/high glare with a LO cart, it might be an RF type noise intermodulation, not the FR of the cart. The only option to correct this condition is to load down (electrically), or have a low pass filter limiting bandwidth. As Atmasphere posted on another thread, capacitance matters here too. Even though electrical resonance might be some astronomical number it will cause ultra high frequency noise of high amplitude. Some might remember J carr explaining this, around page 216 (?) of this thread. Load down a LOMC and you change not only this noise suppression, but control of the cantilever movements (damping). My Genesis 1000 has response well above 100K @ 4 ohm internal. Through my unshielded AHT it sounds too big - larger than life loaded @ 47K. 100 ohms seems perfect, balancing focus vs. size. Once again, loading is preamp and system dependent. There are 2 kinds of damping - electrical and mechanical. MM types are generally more highly damped mechanically. My rule of thumb for loading MM - use as little capacitance as possible while finding optimal resistance load. fleib
|
chakster
The headshell on your link looks to be a bakelite style used at the time with SPU,s like Ortofon. The fact it has the Shure logo in addition to the SME indicates it was sold into the USA market as Shure was the early SME distributor in that region.
You do own a some what rare series 1 SME 3012 if I recall. I think 500 were built and differ from the later 3012's.
|
@bimasta I’ve have a couple of SME arms Maybe you can help me with some information about this rare SME headshell. It looks different from anything i have seen before. more pictures here |
When I'm done with it, I'll post the whole mod procedure. It's really good but extremely difficult to put your hand on it's innards. I hope not dying in my hands.
|
geoch, interesting about the Pioneer PL-L1000. I owned one back when they were current. Phase Linear offered the same table under their brand with a silver/gray plinth. So I don't believe the Pioneer version was sold in the US. I got mine from a Navy buddy on a West-Pac cruise.
I had no complaints but I don't remember particularly outstanding performance either. But that was so long ago and I've gone through so many tables that I can't even remember what my system was at that time. Anyway, nice to hear yours is working well.
|
Henry, I’ve already sold all my previous arms & TTs and left only with a Denon DP-57M and Pioneer PL-L1000 with their premounted tonearms.
Best in use (Pluto 9A Prestige, Saec WE-308SX, Reed 3P) was the linear tracker that comes with the Pioneer PL-L1000. I’m using all pure graphite (mat, clamp, headshell, feet) Damping is fixed and provided by silicone oil at the back rod of tonearm. The wiring is Belden 1800F straight to phono amp. On my Denon DP-57M the London Ref. is a pill very hard to swallow, both with the straight or the S arm tube, no matter what the headshell is. Overall is very alluring but never silent when needed to be. I’m not sure if I prefer the London Ref, over every cartridge ever made. The Z1S/SAS was close, but not enough to keep it. Maybe the Sapphire or Ruby cantilever is best for me. I'm looking forward for your review. The EPC-205/SAS doesn't give the mid bass right. The Grace with the stock stylus was unlistenable. The local SS distributor does not supply the OCL alternative. All others I've mentioned were very good but not close to what I'm looking for. They have the liveness, but not the spark. Although I’m not going to return to MCs and I feel neither to the London Ref, you must understand, I’m used to the MC artificial HF (think about Goldfinger, Titanium, think the opposite of SPU) so much that I can’t wholeheartedly turn to MMs. I’m gonna try with super tweeters & 100K z-foils and general rewiring the next months and give another try. I’m keep searching for, though I’m not so optimistic.
|
Good to see you back here Geoch 😀 Excellent choices of cartridges over the years..... I too am a big SAS fan having one in my Garrott P77, Victor Z1 and V15/III. I'm currently in the process of testing the differences between the original SAS, the Neo-SAS(S) and the Neo-SAS(R) on my P77 👀 One of my early LOMC cartridges was also the VdH Grasshopper (aka Symphonic Line)....and I recall the unbearable high-lighting of the upper frequencies 😱 Strange because one of my favourite LOMC cartridges at the moment is the MIT 1 which has a VdH stylus on a beryllium cantilever 👐 I too admire the SAEC tonearms having owned the 308N, the 407/23, and finally the 8000/ST.... Which arm do you use for your London Ref? Regards |
I found a book with all those answers.
Best to you geoch, Dave |