David,
I do not know why I didn't think of you before with this but I guess 'better late than never'. There is a cartridge available on the Japanese auction site that is a creation of the Garrott Bros. I have no idea that they were producing these. It is called the Garrott Bros. Slimline. It is one of those light brown or tan Grado's. I had never even heard of this Slimline Garrott Bros. Its has a starting price is 20000 Yen ($168). Being from Austrilia, you might have some information in regards to this. Maybe not, but no harm in asking! Regards, |
|
David,
The Japanese sites are no secret. But much understanding is required to operate within its system. Then you have the exchange rates to deal with because all bidding is done in Yen. Many fees are also involved but the good part is that you can find many rare cartridges that do not turn up on other markets. At the moment there is a Sony XL-MC9 available that I am going to bid on. Seldom seen anywhere else! Regards, |
I think the Sumiko Talismans were another rebadged XL-MC body, mounted in a custom made metal body.... particularly the talisman virtuoso, looks like an XL-MC, bracketed into a solid metal body... (presumably with a custom specified cantilever...)
The less square talismans look more like the XL-MC - but a customised version with a solid body rather than the original Sony "removable stylus" version.
I do find my XL-MC104 very sweet, but clearly limited by its relatively ordinary cantilever (resulting in a noticeable resonance around 6kHz if I remember correctly from measurements a few years back) - I think the same beastie with a ruby or boron cantilever might be quite a magical cartridge... then it would be called an XL-MC3 (that is also LO rather than the 104 which is HO)
What is this secret Japanese website you use? (and how do you work the shipping?)
bye for now
David |
Dlaloum,
Your information is quite helpful. I see many Sony's for sale on the Japanese sites. Seldom do I see anything that even slightly resembles something that was built by Satin. Actually most of them (the Sony's), look more like Ortofons or the Sumiko Talisman's which both BTW are Japan manufactured. Yet I keep hearing or reading (speculations) with references to Satin when early Sony cartridges are mentioned. This is why I inquired about if there ever was some kind of cross-reference chart available. Thanks again. Regards |
My knowledge of Sony/Satin is based mostly on material posted on "The Vintage Knob" http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-VC-8E.html
On here: http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-XL-55.html it is mentioned that the fully owned "Sony SoundTec Corporation " was set up to manufacture/design cartridges in 1976, and shut down in 1985...
XL-MC series is here: http://www.thevintageknob.org/sony-XL-MC1.html Where it mentions that there were only 5 Sony rebadges ever...
So there may only be a couple of "Satin" cartridges - the rest are all Sony. |
"Maybe it's a matter of language, your quote from Richard Steinfeld proves my point. Stanton was not trying to "replicate" a MC, he was trying to build a better LO cart, not a replica or copy."
Seems reasonable to me. Now you choose to qualify your statement, and in your colorful world a record groove is a signal.
Give it a rest. |
Yes Neo,
I have been writing (and thinking), in terms of sound quality of the LZ. You have been writing (and thinking), in terms of design. My statement 'replicate a M/C' was referring to 'its sound'. Not its design. The 'nonsense' that I'm writing is a discussion in that context. His intent Neo. Not his design! I used the word 'replicate' because his intent wasn't to 'duplicate exact'. He was trying to capture the 'sound' of the M/C in his M/M cartridge. Replicate it! Neo, some see the world in black and white, and there's nothing wrong with that. But others sees the world in color. Sorry to discover your world is so narrow!
Regards, |
Griffithds, Satin had an M-21 and M-21B in the early '80s. They might be the better ones. They made a lot of HOMC.
I thought the early Sony XL were Satin, but I'm not sure. David says no.
Regards, |
Griffithds, Isn't the nonsense you're writing now, language?
"The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C. I feel it accomplished this idea better in the LZS."
Replicate - to duplicate or copy (something) exactly.
You were writing about the sound quality of HZ vs. LZ not output, and the statement is wrong. The "whole idea" of both cartridges was to NOT replicate a moving coil.
Regards, |
Hi Fleib and David,
I would like to readdress the Sony/Satin discussion. Was their, or is their a cross reference guide that would identify which Sony is what Satin? I understand there are several Satin cartridges that are sought after I wonder if it would be perhaps easier to find then under the Sony ID. All this just might be wishful thinking. I am hoping that either of you or anyone else for that matter, might be able to shine some light on this issue. There was very little (if any), discussions about either Satin or the Sony's on this forum. The Satin's have been kind of a best kept secret and has remained rather an unknown. Considering the money that Sony had available, and to have them pick Satin to produce their cartridges, tells me that their has to be some mighty fine cartridges out there waiting to be discovered. Regards, |
Fleib,
There are many forms of a signal. The signal that a M/C generates is an 'electrical' signal. The signal that a M/C receives are in the form of undulations of the record groove. It's still a signal. A stop sign is a signal to stop. Rain is a signal to open your umbrella. If a cop is following you and is flashing his red lights, it's a signal to pull over. A signal doesn't 'have' to be electrical. Regards, |
Griffithds, "Only that he was trying to replicate what a M/C does to the signal it receives."
A MC doesn't receive a signal it generates a signal by a specific method. There are both LOMC and HOMC, differentiated by output voltage and impedance. Inductance is a product of generation.
Stanton was not trying to "replicate" a MC. "Walter Stanton did not like the moving coil principal that's been so dear to many audiophiles."
That's what I mean by language.
Regards, |
Neo,
You stated that Stanton made 3 different LZ models. See your own statement. I Quote: "Stanton made 3 different LZ models".
In fact, Stanton made 4 models of just the Epoch. The LZ6, LZ7, LZ8 and the LZ9. If we include the 3 your post eludes to, that would make 7 in total, not your stated 3. Neo, I am not sure I understand what you are referring to with your statement "mater of lauguage"? I never said these were copies of M/C's or that Stanton was trying to 'Copy' M/C's. Only that he was trying to replicate what a M/C does to the signal it receives. I do understand the it is physically impossible to make a M/M cartridge suddenly become a M/C. It is either one or the other. That is unless it's a Micro Acoustic! (grin) Regards, |
Griff, Maybe it's a matter of language, your quote from Richard Steinfeld proves my point. Stanton was not trying to "replicate" a MC, he was trying to build a better LO cart, not a replica or copy.
"To me, I felt the LO version more lent its presentation towards the M/C spectrum of sound. Not that I found anything to dislike with the HO version. But if forced to choose one over the other, I would have picked the LZS. The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C."
The Epoch carts came later. The Epic II LZ9S and HZ9S were reviewed 1/'85 in Stereo Review. I don't have a link.
Regards, |
David,
The more time I spend with this JVC X1, the more I am convinced it is the best M/M I have ever heard. They'er times, during certain passages, that I just can not stop smiling. It is so smooth and dynamic that it just begs to be listened to. You are in for quite a treat when yours arrives. I packed it quite well so unless some UPS trucks runs over it, you should receive it in great condition. I am currently using the original stylus which is the same one you have. I must say that I heard no difference between it and the JICO replacement. I am not referring to the JICO SAS because that stylus is for the Z1 version only. That one is 'as good' if not better and even cheaper to construct (find)!
Regards, |
David, thank you for the very interesting information and the recommendation. No, have not used of the low output mm's; although I have always been intrigued by them for the very reasons that you describe. |
Neo,
The product catalog you state is rather dated! Stanton had an entire line of even higher (TOTL), cartridges after the 981's. They were called the Epoch. I also own one of those. The Epoch II LZ8S. The last Epoch produced and the 'actual' Stanton TOTL cartridge was the Epoch II LZ9S.
Regards, |
Fleib,
A Quote from :"The Handbook for Stanton and Pickering Phonograph Cartridges and Styli" by Richard Steinfeld This is from page 20. Low-Impedance (Low Z) Cartridges
Quote" The concept for these cartridges was contributed by Walter Stanton himself. Walter Stanton did not like the moving coil principal that's been so dear to many audiophiles. Stanton reasoned that the performance of the best moving coil cartridges was due, not to special physical properties, but to their electrical characteristics. Why not turn the moving coil concept, in essence, "'inside-out?" In other words, make a moving magnet cartridge that shared the electrical qualities of the best moving coil cartridges." End of Quote"! Neo, I hope this answers your question, "What gives you that idea, the low output? Did Stanton say that was a design goal? There is much more said in this regards Neo but I don't intent to quote the entire chapter due to the possible copy right infringements! BTW: If you, or anyone reading this post doesn't have this have handbook, you should contact Richard for the purchase of one. A factual read of one of our greatest cartridge designers. Regards, |
The 981's and 980"s had the same styli, but the 981's came with their individual calibration test results.specific.to that body and needle....
The L bodies are low inductance / output and the H bodies are high...
The shared styli are what makes for an interesting way of differentiating the generator behaviour.... Both types are top performers... But they do sound subtly different. |
I believe most.of.the Sony MC's prior.to the xl-mc series were satin. The xl-mc's were pure Sony, and were the basis for a number of other non Sony high end efforts too. |
"The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C."
What gives you that idea, the low output? Did Stanton say that was a design goal?
The suffix LZ and HZ relate to impedance (Z), like a microphone. A low impedance mike requires higher gain like a LO cart. Inductance is the number of turns on the coils and relates directly to impedance. Stanton designed the cart to work into a MC phono input, that much we know, but to say they were replicating a MC assumes too much IMO. They were made to compete.
The only thing the 981HZ and LZ had in common is both were TOTL and both had stereohedron tips. Stanton made 3 different LZ models. Stanton product catalogue: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/mbrs/recording_preservation/manuals/Stanton%20Product%20Catalog.pdf
neo
|
I own both the 981 LZS and the HZS. Much to Raul's surprise, I preferred the LZS. There was some discussion way back in this thread somewhere. I wish I could say 'why' but I can not. David, I find your comments in this regard, quite interesting because it is in this very frequency range that you discuss, is where I find my preference of one cartridge over the other. To me, I felt the LO version more lent its presentation towards the M/C spectrum of sound. Not that I found anything to dislike with the HO version. But if forced to choose one over the other, I would have picked the LZS. The whole idea of this cartridge design was to replicate a M/C. I feel it accomplished this idea better in the LZS. Why? I don't know but you David, may have discovered it! Regards |
David, "At 3mH this family of cartridges are relatively high inductance compared to MC's - but a couple of orders of magnitude lower than most MM's." ?
980/7500 = 0.3mV, < 1mH. Approaching 1mH is a lot of inductance for .3mV. Typical LOMC inductance is 20uH. I'm not sure if this is the reason these seem to sound like a MM (to me) despite low output. I can't quite put my finger on what it is.
In the BAS link provided by Lew, Cotter talked about moving coils vs. moving fields (bottom page 20) types. He attributes superior MC info retrieval to torsional affects on MM cantilevers, their being more susceptible to stylus drag and the cantilever rotating. Seems to me in '77 this conclusion is more of a distinction in cantilever/stylus design and material, than generator types. Still, the question remains. Is one type superior, and why?
Regards, |
Frogman - have you tried the low output MM's (eg Pickering XLZ7500)?
I ask this because one of my interesting observations was that there was a noticeable and measurable difference in the midrange and lower high end, between using the same D7500 needle in a LO body and a HO body.
This implies that this difference is down to the magnetic "circuit"
My assumption is that when running LO, the poles (and magnets in the case of MC's) are taking a hugely lower level of magnetic energy - hence there is markedly reduced magnetic distortions (eddy currents, hysteresis, and such).
What I measured was that the high midrange, low high end trough which is present on all the MM's I have measured, is reduced from a 3db drop to a 1db drop (1db is within the error margins of the measuring method, so it may be down to zero - but I don't think so, as MC's seem to show approximately the same 1db drop)
So I know that some of the signal is no longer "lost" in some form of distortion.
The next question, is that given that we are in the real world, the energy is never lost, but merely converted - so where have those 2db of additional signal gone - much of it will I assume re-appear as various forms of distortion (more analysis needed).
I think you might find that such a LOMM has the same sonic "feel" as you describe for MC's.
At 3mH this family of cartridges are relatively high inductance compared to MC's - but a couple of orders of magnitude lower than most MM's.
It is also possible that some of this benefit would also accrue on designs like the AT25/TK9 (88mH) or the EPC100 (85mH) - but being an order of magnitude higher than the "true" LOMM's, I don't think so.
Just a couple of thoughts - and if you have or can get hold of one of the Stantering LO bodies, I would very much like to hear your feedback
bye for now David |
Sony XL series? I know how popular this series is. I own XL 44L, XL 88 L and XL 88 D (D= diamond cantilever/stylus combo). The problem however is they are irreparable. The body is glued togehter from two egual parts and can be only opened by cutting the body. Morita san the designer of this series is somhow connected with Jico styli. My comrad Don used the occasion to ask how to open the body. The answer was : the cart will be destroyed. My XL 88 D is by Axel for longer as one year now. He has no idea yet how to open the damn thing. |
I believe most.of.the Sony MC's prior.to the xl-mc series were satin. The xl-mc's were pure Sony, and were the basis for a number of other non Sony high end efforts too. |
|
Griff, yes Satin was the OEM for some Sony MC's.
Regards, |
****Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music****
****No, sorry, this is misuided. The heart is soft, and it is loud****
Well, neither comment is quite correct. IMO, the heart of music is in how truthfully or seamlessly the dynamic swing from soft to loud and back is reproduced; not just wether it can get to loud without distortion. In my experience some cartridges can get to loud fully and without (much) distortion, but leave out the fine dynamic gradations in between. That is what gives music the excitement and it's swagger or rhythmic groove. This has been the big dilemma for me with the mm vs mc issue. In my setup, mm's tend to distort somewhat less at the musical peaks, but mc's tend to have a better sense of aliveness and dynamic surprise; more of music's rhythmic impetus is heard on the way to loud or soft while still being generally very acceptable, if not not quite as good, re distortion at the peaks. The tonal issues are a different matter that has a lot to do with system tuning. In most of my systems over the years, mm's have tended to produce a tonal fullness that is closer to real. |
Does anyone know if Satin was the manufacture of some of the Sony cartridges. Perhaps it is the other way around. Sony manufactured for Satin? Curious minds want to know! (grin) Regards, |
Canon's Canon's why the focus on canons?
I certainly was not focusing on them!
As I pointed out, there are plenty of excellent recordings that push the boundaries of tracking and tracing ability - outside of the famous canons!
Also I am not a big proponent of spec engineering and spec marketing...
The fact that a cartridge requires an extreme anti-skating setup to successfully negotiate a particular test record, does not mean that the cartridge should be set up in this manner for normal use!
Rather (to my way of thinking) it is an indication of the cartridges capabilities under extreme circumstances.
If one cartridge is capable of passing the highest level torture test of tracking on the HiFi News test record, where another one is incapable of the same regardless of setup/configuration, then you have a very clear indication that one has superior tracking abilities.
It is likely to perform better on any of the records that have more demanding tracking needs.
There are a bunch of parameters that come into play with both tracking and tracing... the arm geometric tracking error, will directly affect tracking ability. This also means that a test track which coincidentally resides around the peak tracking error of your specific arm setup geometry, will show cartridges performing worse than on your friends identical turntable/arm configured with a slightly different alignment schema.
If you wanted to accurately measure tracking ability, the test track would need to be located close to the geometric null of the arms alignment... (or perhaps more practically, the arm/cartridge would need to be realigned to place the null on the test track location).
The other interesting thing about the "null" is that at that point one frequently requires far less anti-skating (and depending on cartridge / arm often none at all)
Under normal circumstances where the TT involved is not a linear tracker, and the arm has not been adjusted so the null and the test track coincide, the test can only be used as a relative data point to compare with other cartridges tested on that same setup.
Do I have cartridges that rank as poor trackers, but that sound really nice... Yes I do. But I also approach these cartridges with greater caution... in the knowledge of their inherent limitations.
bye for now
David |
On the subject of VTF in particular and cartridges in general, you guys might want to read the summary of a talk given by Mitchell Cotter to the Boston Audio Society in 1977, when men were men. Here.You need to scroll down until you find the summary of his presentation. Cotter says for every cartridge there is one and only one "correct" VTF, the one that sets the VTA correctly. (I don't think SRA had entered into the lingo as of 1977.) He also says some interesting things about MC vs MM. For example, MCs are inherently more resistant to stylus drag, in the respect that stylus drag tends to pull the whole stylus/cantilever assembly forward from the cartridge body. As of 1977, most MCs were far superior to most MMs in resisting distortions caused by this effect, but there were some exceptions among MMs. And Cotter seems to have preferred MC cartridges to MM ones, but 1977 was still early in the battle. |
The point is, if you're going to track and trace canon shots properly, grab your jeep. Otherwise, a careful choice in wheels will do the job. |
Dialoum
Quote: "Still if even the prosaic MC1 can achieve 65um - why would one accept a cartridge that barely makes 50um?"
I don't know of anyone who is using a cartridge that barely makes this 50um? It has been agreed that to track today's vinyl productions, you need to be able to track a 50 microns test signal 'without distortion'. I think this is what Nandric was eluding to. This is not a 'barely acceptable, but a pure test signal. I use a test record and use the 60 micron pure test tone thrush-hold to set up my VTF. I view this in the following way. Why track my records at 2 grams VTF (or more), when I can get this 60 microns pure at 1.2 grams. If a pure test tone can be arrived at with this setting, why punish 99.9% of my records with it set at 2 grams just to track cannons? Perhaps you do not feel that an increase of 40% VTF makes a difference in record wear? BTW: I haven't played that cannon track in 10 years nor do I intend to! |
**If I'm off roading, I take my Jeep.**
That's where the analogy breaks down. Going to change vehicles midstream, or carts mid-record? What if you're driving in your car and don't happen to see a larger than medium pothole?
While 50um will fall short of tracking some passages that are less difficult than cannon shots, most carts do at least a little better. David's Ortofon examples are exaggerated. A 2M Blue tracks at 80um, but so does a Quintet Bronze, so you don't have to get Anna to achieve 80um. Windfeld seems to be their best tracker - 100um @ 2.6g and 16cu. Trackability (Shure's term?) isn't just high cu, it's more complex.
Regards, |
Well this thread started on 01-15-08 and the most of us still need to guess about the right VTF and anti-skate. The so called 'recommended VTF' between, say, 1,5-2,5 g make no sense. If one looks at Jan Alearts specs one can see what is possible. Anyway the issue is pretty important and our 'world authority' Dlaloum contribution welcome. The problem is that the other 'world authority' warned against such values as 80-90 microns. This of course under the assumption that anti-skate force need to be (much) increased to get those values. Too much anti-skate however is the worst case scenario. I own many MM carts which can reach such values as 80-90 microns. But I am not sure what to think and need to make some choice. Those of my MC carts which can reach 70 microns with 2g VTF are not the problem. Those which need + 3 g. to reach 60 microns are. But what to do with MM carts which can reach 90 microns but with a scary amount of anti-skate? For those I chose 70 microns. For the low compliance MC carts I am, as I already mentioned, satisfy with 60 microns. If our other 'world authority' Fleib would be so kind to give a lecture about styli shapes we will cover both: the tracking and tracing issues. |
"Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music"
No, sorry, this is misuided. The heart is soft, and it is loud. It is transient and it is sustained. It is whatever the creator and listener define. It is a language with many words that do not only swear and scream.
Canon shots are hard to trace and track because they hold a wide frequency band with great impulse in the groove. Can your tires withstand a monster pothole without cracking the rims? Mine won't, so I try to avoid the subject. Small and medium ones are quite doable. If I'm off roading, I take my Jeep. |
Transient Peaks are at the heart of the music.
The orchestral crescendo's, the massed chorus + Orchestra in the final movement of Beethovens Ninth Symphony, and a plethora of other examples... all these peaks, whether delicate items in a softer composition (cymbals in a Jazz band), or loud complex items such as a full orchestral crescendo, these are the heart and soul of the music - the accents, the moments of most intense emotional content.
These moments are absolutely NOT the time to fail and fall into sibilance, or other forms of distortion! (although I do know some people who cannot stand too much emotional tension, and tend to always do something to "break" the moment.... )
Although as a general rule high compliance designs track better, this is not fixed - consider the MC Anna, with compliance at 9cu and VTF of 2.6g, it is definitely a low compliance design - but tracking is specced at 80um - so it is a good tracker as well.
But this is a megabuck cartridge, so one does expect high performance.... what is less expected is that the Ortofon OM40 (at less than 1/10th the price) has even better tracking ability (90um).
And Ortofon MC designs in the same price bracket as the OM40 are tracking at a mere 65um (MC1 Turbo).
Still if even the prosaic MC1 can achieve 65um - why would one accept a cartridge that barely makes 50um?
Also worthy of note is that tracking ability is also frequency dependent - Ortofon measures at 315Hz, if you look at the chart I mentioned earlier for the Shure V15IV, you will note that the distribution of tracking peak requirements is highest in the high frequencies (where effective tracking is ALSO dependent on tracing ability)
Typically cartridge tracking abilities peak at between 1k and 4k and start dropping thereafter... being able to achieve a certain value at 315Hz is no guarantee of being able to do the same at 15kHz. (although typically 315Hz and 15kHz are both similarly down on peak capabilities...)
Still I think one of the key items in the sheer ease of the sound provided by the MM/MI designs we discuss in this thread is their high trackability - on average noticeably better than even multi-megabuck MC's.
It is very difficult to engineer a high tracking ability MC, (or at least a reliable one...) - whereas it can relatively easily be done with an MM/MI design.
bye for now David
(continuing to wave the flag for MM/MI) |
Hi David, Lucky me you obviously had no problem to understand that I was referring to the real cannons.Those wich are used to kill people. Reference is our connection with the so called reality. The corespondence theory of truth assume the relation between languge and reality. So meanings of words on their own will not do.I assume that Lew is not reaserching the meanings of microbs but the creeps themself , write about in statements such that his colleaque can check his findings about the creeps and not about the meaning of the names we use to refer to them. In some sense 'cannon as a musical instrument' can be understood as a referring expression but I have never seen one in any orchestra. So, probaly, only Frogman was able to see them. I hope he does not teach his students in the art of playing this isntrument? My only problem with your argumets is the 'if' which you use like a real philosopher. 'If the tracking ability is not sufficient there is not much one can do with tracing'. But why this assumption? The point I made was that tracking is a function of complience and tracing a function of the stylus (shape). Those are 'different animals' I would say. The complience difference between carts is connected with the theory (?)or belief that tonearm mass and complience are mutualy dependant. That is why we see low comliance carts (5-10 um/mN), moderate (10-20 um/mN) and high compliance (> 35 um/mN). We assume that cart producers know what they are doing. I own some of those low complience carts which are not able to track better as 50 microns but I myself was not able to hear any mistracking. Probably because I don't consider cannons as musical intsruments and don't care how they 'sound'. The other 'if' is about the tonearms. Aka if you own an lenear tracker you don't need to worry about the anti-skate. But the problem is that most of us don't use lenear tonearms and may need to use the anti-skate. You are of course free to ignore us but this would be not kind of you(grin).
|
Hi Nandric, canon's are not the only form of extreme dynamics - jazz rimshots also qualify, cymbals can often be remarkably extreme in their peaks too...
The canon shots are the "gross" end of the peak repertoir, but there are a lot of finer more delicate contributors to our musical picture that require quite extreme dynamic abilities.
Note I am not saying that tracing is unnecessary - far from it, but I AM saying that tracking is key...
With regards to anti-skating, those of us that use a linear tracker, do not concern ourselves with such trivial and irrelevant bagatelles...
I am quite certain that most of this august group have seen the charts that Shure published, after studying and measuring the peak tracking requirements of hundreds of records... The information was first published as part of the marketing for the V15II I believe (although it may have been earlier) - but it does demonstrate where the tracking peaks lie, and what sort of envelope of tracking performance a cartridge needs to achieve. The point at the time was that the V15II would achieve it obviously, but so could many of its highly regarded competitors from Stanton/pickering, Ortofon, Grace, ADC, Audio Technica, etc.... (all of our favourite MM's!)
A top tracker will usually also be a high compliance cartridge...
IF your cartridge has a more limited tracking "envelope" then there is a group of records that this cartridge will never be able to properly reproduce. And given that this group of records is also the records that are most likely to be high fidelity high quality recordings, it all seems rather self defeating to me.
If you take a look at the manual for the V15IV (at http://cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1817/us_pro_v15iv_ug.pdf ) On page 4 the trackability chart is displayed.
I am less interested in the plot of the V15IV's peformance than I am in the instances of records that are above that plot - there are at least two instances that have velocities of over what appears to be 80cm/s, with a whole bunch of other recordings ranging in the 40 to 70cm/s.
It would be nice to have some data as to which recording was which data point, but it does not matter, as many more difficult recordings were released AFTER this chart was made (including the Telarc / Kunzel Canons...) - and therefore the number of recordings that push the boundaries has increased substantially since then.
Are you really proposing that it does not matter if a cartridge cannot play all these recordings without mistracking? And by definition, the cartridge would perforce damage the record each time it played it!! (given that mistracking is the single greatest cause of record damage)
bye for now
David |
Lewm&Frogman, Since Frege's canon that the sense of a word is its contribution to the meaning of the (whole)sentence it is not usual to ask for the meaning of a word on its own. This is the called 'contextual approach' in logic, linguistic and philosophy of languge. But for the so called languge purist even one single letter counts. You get from me the extra 'n' for your 'canons' to shoot at me. Your contributions can be called Pyrrhic victory. |
Nikola may be more than a semanticist. A canon in music is the repetition of a musical motif in a certain sequence and at specified times using strict imitation. Tchaikovsky used the cannon as a musical instrument with it's own voice and scored in a way that met the requirements for a canon as described above. ;-) |
Nikola, Since you are a semanticist at heart, I know you will appreciate the fact that a "canon" (sic) is "a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged" Whereas, a cannon will blow that stuff out of the water. |
World authorities are like philosophers. To refute one, one only need to read some other. I vividly remember how proud I was when I got 90 microns tracking ability from my combo Ortofon MC 30/FR-64 (without 'S' = aluminum tube). But then I come the authority Van den Hul across warning against such objective. To get such a result one need to increase the anti-skate force till the 'buzz' from the right channel disappears. Well that is how I got my 90 microns. I used then some German test record by which 50 microns is mentioned as 'normal' for 'normal records'. But I have no idea how many records are made with canon shots. I do however remember that Raul was also very fond of Tchaikovsky. He always mentioned those canons by his praise of whatever cart. He obviously missed the distinction involved between 'tracking' and 'tracing' and conseqently used those canons to shoot at flys. As a rational but amateurish person I decided to chose between the Germans and my own compatriot Van den Hul for 60 microns. My other argument is that according to me canons have nothing to do with music. |
Tracking Vs Tracing... interesting distinction...
If tracking is poor, there is not much point having superb tracing abilities.
You cannot achieve good tracing, if you are mistracking!
So tracing is only relevant when the stylus is performing WITHIN its tracking capabilities.
In terms of tracing, there is not a lot to choose between a high quality 0.2mil eliptical and an exotic line contact...
The Shibatas, and subsequent Vdh, FG, ML designs, do no better than a 0.2mil eliptical within the audio band. (in theory)
In fact the more basic HE's and Shibatas have a side radius closer to 0.3mil... and the 0.2mil elipticals are superior!
Another aspect that has substantial impact is the level of polish on the needle, the reduction in friction, reduces vinyl roar/noise, as well as improving a range of other audible performance parameters.
The Denon DL103 is a prime example of a relatively "broad" needle (conical/spherical) where the level of polish/finishing on the needle is such that performance becomes competitive with much finer styli which should theoretically have superior tracing abilities.... A top quality 0.5mil conical vs a rough 0.3mil eliptical, the conical will be the better performer. Even though it will not trace frequencies over 12kHz effectively, and will have a lot of distortion at the higher frequencies due to tracing problems, within its tracing abilities, which include 95% of audio, it will perform better.
But a well finished ML/MR on a tracking champion like the Shure V15 series has both bases covered... (and the SAS is also well finished and an excellent tracker).
Having a stylus / cartridge that can only track 60microns, implies accepting that you will never be able to hear undistorted dynamic peaks... cymbals, rimshots, 1812 Canon shots - there are plenty of examples where although the overall level of the recording is well within the 60u, the peaks will be pushing that tracking ability.
For what we think of as a High Fidelity transducer, I think that is just not good enough.
I fact, in my own biased opinion, all those MC emperors, who cannot achieve better than 60u tracking ability... they are definitely wearing no clothes.
The best MC's have much better tracking than that, and we should not accept under par tracking in exchange for other aspects of performance, it implies increased wear to both needle and record from miss-tracking, as well as decreased dynamic abilities and increased distortion.
One of the reasons so many of these fantastic classic MM's sound so good, is that they have great tracking abilities, combined with great tracing abilities - do the fundamentals right and the rest has a chance to fall into place.
Once you have good tracking and tracing, then you can focus on other issues - resonance control, voicing, reducing magnetic losses etc...
A basic AT92e is a wonderful cartridge that gets most of this right - add a decent quality line contact needle to the mix, and you are 90% of the way to the perfomance of a high end megabuck cartridge... all for around US$100.
The incremental steps beyond that, cost ever increasing amounts to achieve (price doubles for each tiny step up... gets expensive real quick!) But in the vintage cartridges, this price/value equation does not apply, and we can purchase cartridges with performance on a par with the megabuck brigade, for much lower prices...
Although many of the bargains are drying up now, (in now small part due to this thread) there are a plethora of relatively unknown classic cartridge bodies that can be fitted with a newly purchased SAS - so for under $200 you can easily get a cartridge that steps into true high fidelity record playing.
bye for now David |
World Authority - hmm I may get a swollen head!
I have gone to the bother of doing substantial measurments on 3 different SAS versions (N97xE, VN5MR, VN5xMR), with a collection of different Shure bodies...
My conclusions (in a nutshell) are that the SAS styli best suit bodies with an inductance of around 500mH (which includes the V15III and V15IV)
Lower inductance bodies (such as the V15V and V15Vx) require substantial and dramatic loading changes to get the frequency response close to the neutrality that the original OEM stylus achieved (at manufacturer Spec loading)
The main resonant frequency on the SAS is circa 28kHz - which is not unusually low for boron, but an extended series of measurements focused on frequency / amplitude response and different loadings (I measured at 5 or 6 different C loadings up to 720pf, and ran the test for 4 or 5 different R loadings)
Conclusion was that with the lowest inductance Shure bodies (V15V - 320mH) it needed a low R (26k to 30k) with a high C (600 to 750pf).
I did get some V15III's and IV's to do similar tests, but have not got a round "tuit"....
My modelling and my testing with 500mH more basic Shure bodies (1000e, V15HRP), seems to indicate that at that inductance, the SAS should provide relatively neutral voicing (as per the original Shure's) with close to original Spec loading. But like I said - I have not tested the theory with the V15's yet! |
Fleib,
I have a SDS in use on my VPI turntable. Used as a speed control. What purpose would it serve with a Shure V15? (grin)
Regards, |
The Shure V15 replacement styli are not interchangeable. The V15III takes the VN35HE replacement and the V15IV is the VN45HE. It would be easier to see the different models at LP Gear, rather than Jico site. They have a separate category for Jico.
You'll probably get better results with the III or IV models paired with SDS. Dlaloum is probably the world authority on these and it seems they will work better on the higher inductance models due to an unusually low (for boron) resonant frequency.
Regards, |
You have to tell Jico that you want the SAS stylus for the V15. As far as I know....this stylus will then fit any of the V15 variants...❓👀 I know some who like the other versions of the V15...😗 As for me....give me the V15/III or nothing....😜 |