Dear Timeltel: I own too a ZLM stylus and I like it but maybe for the sapphire cantilever I prefer this one in the Astrion.
As I posted in the begin with the thread in those old times a cartridge manufacturer really had a " furious " competency for the customers and this made that all those MM/MI great designers put all each one skills on the cartridge design and cartridge building. No one era/time IMHO was so " prolific " in quality performance with so many cartridges showing, even today , its greatness.
I can't find any today cartridge design ( MM/MI/MC ) that really can compete with the best MM/MI vintage ones that are several cartridges not two or three.
Btw, the Astrion packing is just gorgeus: manual, screwdriver, screws/nuts, stylus brush, FR test diagrams/charts and the inside box where the Astrion comes is an acrylic block with big letters saying: ASTRION, just beautiful. As I say the cartridge competency was really " heavy " and the cartridge packing was very important too. Unfortunatelly today we are loosing something of this " manufacturer proud " attitude.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear friends: This is very good option for headshell wires:
http://cgi.ebay.com/PCOCC-headshell-leads-Audio-technica-/360188540805?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53dce8f785#ht_1849wt_1003
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Raul, Dgob:
Dgob, I'm sure you'll find your Point 4 worth your investment, congradulations and let us know your impression of the cartridge.
Raul, I've seen but not heard the Astrion, it is indeed a beautiful work. The packaging is indicative of the pride the maker took in his product. I was tempted to obtain the Astrion stylus but refrained for a reason some might consider self-defeating. This relates to a comment read long ago in which the author stated that some "audiophiles" concluded that it was possible to utilize a cartridge that was so analytical the level of detail and separation presented became a distraction to enjoyment of the selected music.
This is under no circumstance an indictment of the Astrion, which I understand is a wonderful cartridge and one I've not heard. It is a reflection of my own taste and experience, the Astrion is an unknown to me. I continue to enjoy the Acutex LPM 320-111STR, a cartridge that offers remarkable extension in the hf's and precise transitions throughout the audible range. I listen to the 320 for perhaps 15 minutes, then exchange it for the 315-111STR bonded stylus. I'm becoming familiar with the Shure ML 140HE, a delectably neutral cartridge. Also precise, extended and free of detectable distortion or unwanted resonance. A recent find was a NOS stylus for the ML120HE, just a small step down from the highly polished MASCAR nude tip of the 140HE. In both examples the lesser quality stylus softens any perception of "edgyness". While clarity, transients and definition are detectably diminished, the lesser stylii seem (to me) to have the effect of burnishing the music, avoidance of long term listening fatigue is enhanced and I'm less involved with critiqueing the equipment. I'm quite aware performance is diminished, when I wish to listen critically the better quality styli are implemented. Please don't think I'm suggesting one should intentionally seek out "second best" but I'm curious if any who read this might have similar thoughts. Just as a leisurely drive on a soft day can be as rewarding as driving a high-performance machine in a spirited manner, there are times when I find "full throttle audio" tireing.
You've hinted at another topic suitable for "discussion". In the early '90's, it seemed cartridge design had become influenced by the sterility of CD's and the unique qualities of infinite harmonic interaction and the vitality of analog were sacrificed in a misguided attempt to compete with the "perfect sound" of digital. As a consequence, and in spite of the advances made in technology and application of materials, the cartridges I give consideration to are typically those developed between 1970 and 1990. It is probable that my expectations are tuned (contaminated) by long term exposure to vintage equipment and transducers, but then it isn't called the "golden age of audio" for no reason. This is in no way intended to be provocative but again, I would be interested in reading the opinions of others regarding the correctness of performance of these then TOTL relics as compared to contemporary pickups, of which there are several (Aolsala, Grado is one) of note.
Raul, I'm grateful for your continued support of this thread, it is a valuable platform for the exchange of knowledge, application and experience. |
Timeltel,
You wrote: >>While clarity, transients and definition are detectably diminished, the lesser stylii seem (to me) to have the effect of burnishing the music, avoidance of long term listening fatigue is enhanced and I'm less involved with critiqueing the equipment.<<
I had a similar experience with my Sumiko Andante P-76. I still like this cartridge very much and will return to it. It does not excite in the usual way that makes some cartridges exciting. Such as sharp tingling transient snap, bass that feels like a punch in the chest etc. etc. Yet it does have good clarity and transient snap, but they don't yell TAKE NOTICE OF ME!
It is somewhat analogous to watching sports highlights which are exciting in every quick scene verses watching the whole game where there are exciting moments occasionally.
Like you I enjoyed listening to my music without critiquening it's audiophile qualities with the P-76. My Empire D4000/III has all the audiophile qualities, yet it does not diminish my enjoyment of the P-76.
Your post just reminded me I need to remount and enjoy it again.
Cheers, |
It seems all of you guys are after vintage cartridges. So be it. Enjoy them. I started back in the early 60s with all these cartridges and have quite a few in my collections. They are just relics gathering dust. Truly the cartridges have evolved due to better quality materials. They are great conversation pieces however.
I can summarize this in one sentence:
" TO EACH ITS OWN"
If you have accurate transducers: ribbon, electrostatics, plasma - you will hear all the problems with these vintage cartridges. If you really know the sound of unamplified music then you better go and move forward.
All those cartridges were very fine in their day. However, Raul does not mention what low mass tonearm he used with his ADC-25 which he sold. And in any case, just maybe the qualities he finds in those other cartridges agree more to his tastes. Not me. I find a lot of colorations which are trully unacceptable to state of the art performances.
Cartridges in the late 70s and early 80s are truly better than anything in the 60s. I am sorry but speak with any engineer in cartridge design and he will agree.
Going back to the Astrion and all these other attempts. ADC's Peter Pritchard sold the Company to BSR not BSA. The designers at BSR tried upon improving his ideas but unfortunately to these ears these attemps were frivolous. I certainly do not like any of the XLM III, ZLM, etc... as supposedly improved by the BSR people. The Astrion was an attempt at going the right direction, unfortunately it is not a complete triumph. Just compare this cartridge (and I can prove it side by side any time) to the Grado Signature III and you will hear what I mean. One has to compare these things, not talk about them.
By the way, The Sonus Dimension 5 was a very nice cartridge designed by Peter. Peter had the qualities of an engineer who "listened" BSR certainly did not. |
Regards, Montepilot--
Exactly.
Many thanks for your kind response (and refraining from calling me, umm, "special").
Enjoy your P-76. |
If you are trying to find a Peter Pritchard design for the Super XLM or Super XLM II -- there is no such animal. Peter could not produce in the laboratory a suitable successor to the XLM II. It was never produced. Period. I know, I use to talk to him a lot of ver the phone in those days. However, BSR when they bought the Company introduces a Super XLM and maybe a Mk II as well. They are not the same type of "XLM" sound unfortunately and I do not recommend them.
You can tell by the boxand packaging. |
Raul,
What tracking force did you track your ADC-25?? What was the tonearm you used with? This cartridge had to be used a tracking force of no more than 0.7 grams not a tenth more!!! The pickup could track practically anything at 0.5 grams. If you used it with an incompatible arm at 1.5 grams you were doomed and the sound would be bloated, ill defined, congested and the suspension would be damaged.
None of the reviewers knew how to handle this cartridge properly. Did you also know that the spherical stylus was design to properly play "Dynagroove" RCA records which were bass compensated? |
Quote In the other side I don't care what Harry say about ( no I don't need the review, thank you. ) I know what I'm saying. What he said/heard many years ago had the influence of an audio system that IMHO was not comparable to today systems and more important to my today system, period.
Btw, if you think ( like you posted ) that the tonearm effective mass is the determinant factor on a cartridge quality performance then IMHO you need an update on the overall cartridge/tonearm subject. I don't want to open a new window about, only an opinion.
UNQUOTE
You mean to tell me that the Infinity Speakers (IRS, QRS, SERVOS) and the Quad electrostatics and the other very fine speakers when the cartridges you discussed were reviewe are not excellent. Let me tell you, with todays electronics, cables and tonearms and tables those speakers are still superb sounding. No. I do not agree Pierson was comparing cartridges with cartridges, lemons with lemons and apples with apples. Some sounded better some sounded worse and some truly dreadful.
Tonearms with very low mass have nothing to do with the sound quality they are capable. I am talking about having low mass capability and excellent sonic performances. You have to have both ingredients. Low mass for the high compliance cartridges is just not enough. Otherwise certain tonearms would have been great with the cartridges mentioned. Witness the ADC LMF-1 and LMF-2 they just were poor in sonic qualities compared to the Black Widow or Vestigal tonearms or even to the Grace 707.
Purity and transparency of sound quality is of utmost importance. A tonearm can have medium or high mass and be superior sonically wth the right cartridges. The materials of the tonearm and the excution of the design are key ingredients. I am not stating that tonearm mass is an end to itself.
The high compliance cartridge need a low mass tonearm and also a superb sounding tonearm (TWO INGREDIENTS WHICH ARE NOT ACHIEVABLE FULLY!!!) |
Dear Raul, Your Cooperhead tonearm experiences confirm the importance that the whole tonearm design has on a cartridge quality performance. I appreciate the validity of your advice which is why I've strived to acquire the very best arms I could afford but why does the arm design appear to be more critical with MM/MI cartridges than LOMCs? Is there more 'hidden' potential in these wonderful cartridges than in the current LOMCs (as this whole Forum Topic of yours seems to indicate) or do I have the wrong arms for the Moving Coils? And whilst I have read about Low Mass and High Mass arms and their compatibility with High Compliance and Low Compliance cartridges, I have never seen anything about the arm mass at the Pivot Point which is the critical design point in Continuum's philosophy? If you look at the mass around the Pivot Point on the Phantom II, you will see it is enormous in relation to the mass of the rest of the arm and indeed all my MM/MI cartridges sound horrid in the Phantom yet LOMCs do not? Continuum seems to know something that most arm designers appear to ignore? |
Dear Aolsala: I think you are suffering a misapprehension. The thread is about MM/MI/IM/MC cartridges. We are fortunate to have so many from the past to rediscover, age discrimination does not exist here. Please make appropriate contributions as you are able. If you know of a MM cartridge worthy of consideration (such as the Grado Sig-111 you mentioned) then tell us WHY, we'll enjoy the input.
I do not believe there are many neophytes among the posters to this thread, you may find yourself viewed by your contemporaries as "preaching to the choir" and most are much more interested in which is better and WHY.
ADC cartridges have been a subject of exploration for only two weeks, Peter Prichard is also a relatively new name to the exchanges. Next week there may be much said about Grace cartridges, those who have the correct information might enveigh us with the entire history of Shinagawa Musen, or perhaps someone will reveal that Piezo of Japan contracted cartridges and styli for Empire, Azden and Acutex.
Please consider your past few posts. In one, you state as an absolute fact that vintage cartridges cannot begin to compare with modern, material and technological advances exclude them from consideration. You then proceed to identify specific tonearms and speakers from decades past as competitive with those of today. As such, I find your statements opinionated, inconsistent and most importantly, unsubstantiated. And, you have the social graces of a bulldozer. This is of course, IMO, usual disclaimers, etc.
|
Halcro
At least you can actually hear MM cartridges on your Phantom. Mine gets covered in a mist of RF and other associated crap.
I would luv to hear them sound horrid :-)
Is one reason maybe due to the Phantom being a unipivot tonearm. MC's sound a lot better in my Naim ARO than do MM's, and that is a unipivot.
Whereas on my Exclusive P3/P10 and Ortofon tonearm, they sound a lot better.
|
Aolsala,
I wont rehearse what Timeltel has already so graciously expressed. I would suggest that my familiarity with Pritchard does not lead me to the personal relationship that you enjoyed with him and, possibly, this explains why I would not accept your black-and-white proclamations that everything that came after him on the XLM line was inferior. I repeat, "very trusted" listeners (who have heard most or all of the ADC's) still proclaim the Super XLM MkII as the supreme cartridge among their range.
Please do continue to share your views, as with most things in life, we are free to choose that which we find useful and dismiss that which we do not: a use of our critical faculties that I have oft promoted here and elsewhere! |
Downunder, The Continuum arms (Cobra & Copperhead) are also unipivots like the Phantom.
Perhaps the term 'horrid' was a bit strong. In the Phantom arm my MM cartridges sound as 'good' as the expensive ZYX Universe and Dynavector XV1s. It is only in comparison to the Copperhead that the term 'horrid' was used in relation to the Phantom. But guess what?........with the Empire 1000ZE/X in the Copperhead, both the Universe in the DaVinci and the XV1s in the Phantom sound equally 'horrid' in comparison. I simply cannot listen to MC cartridges any more. Raul, you simply MUST get a Copperhead to hear all your wonderful MM cartridges.
Strangely enough Downunder, I can't play my Azden cartridge in ANY of my arms due to "a mist of RF and other associated crap" just as you seem to experience with the Phantom? |
Dear all, Seneca was the first to postulate:'rationale enim animal est homo'. I think that our answer to Seneca would be :' dear Seneca being rational is fine but not all the time'. With 'our' I am refering to our members. Ie those who buy all these carts. But why should the producers, uh,produce carts with such compliance that nobody can use them? This,at least to me,is an anigma. Regards, |
Dear Aolsala, You wrote, "Cartridges in the late 70s and early 80s are truly better than anything in the 60s. I am sorry but speak with any engineer in cartridge design and he will agree." I guess you may be feeling battered by now, but as far as I know, this thread has mainly concerned itself with cartridges from the 70's and early 80's, and I don't see where anyone ever wrote that cartridges from the 60's were inherently superior to them, ("Inherently" is the key word; some early stereo cartridges did get good reviews here.) I do recall when the ADC XLM(?) was nominated king of the hill by HP. I bought one and found it to be not so wonderful (but not bad) in my own system (yes, with all the qualifications about the ancillary equipment of those days). Back then, a lot of the stuff reviewed in TAS was accessible in terms of cost, and I and my audiophile friends often auditioned items recommended by HP. (These days, who could afford to do that?) We usually did not agree with his recommendations. The HK Citation 12 preamp is one example I remember well. HP thought it was the greatest. We thought it was shrill, the epitome of bad transistor sound.
Halcro or anyone else, What are you hearing with the Azden that you deem to be due to "RF"? |
Dear Aolsala: +++++ " I can summarize this in one sentence:
" TO EACH ITS OWN" +++++
you already " summarize ", IMHO useless/futile to go on with the subject.
Btw, the thread and the people that posted and post knows that here does not exist a " contest/competition " attitude with winners and loosers, there was or is no a single looser only winners.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Well, at least Raul and Aolsala agree that it is the whole quality of the arm, not just the mass, that affects the sonic result.
In the mid-70s I bought a new XLM II, in part influenced by HP. At the time I had a Phillips turntable and arm (202? 212? I just remember the green lights in the touch-sensitive buttons). In spite of my later opinion that it was not a very good arm, it was relatively low mass and I thought the cartridge sounded wonderful - detailed, deep, and dynamic. I also had Stacked Advents (those thanks to HP after a couple of years with single Advents) and HK Citation 11 and 12. Lew, the preamp was the 11. It included a 5-band equalizer. I was very disappointed and got rid of that quickly. The 12 amp sounded great but did not stand up to driving the 4 ohm load of the double Advents and after a repair I replace it too. |
Tim, Could not remember whether the Citation preamp was #11 or #12 so took a shot at it. Thanks for correcting me. Good to know you felt the same about it as I (and others I knew) did back then. As to the cartridge, the one I owned was definitely the first version, the XLM. I'd like to have it back for a listen on today's gear. |
Halcro
can't listen to MC's anymore. Sounds like you need some tubes in your system to soften the blow :-)
I do know what you mean with the typical MC sound (tipped up upper frequencies) - luckily the A90 has none of that MC sound - very smooth, flat frequency, where the XV-1 can sound a tipped up in the treble in direct comparison.
I don't think Bob Graham ever designed his Phantom by using MM's. Lucky I have a couple of other tables that play MM's just fine.
If you can't get the Axden working, I'll come over and pick it up and try in my Exclusive P3 :-)
BTW, in what way does the Copperhead sound better than the Phantom - it seems like on every cartridge. I am guessing the Davinci souns better with MC's as it is a litle more forgiving/musical than the Phantom?
cheers |
I truly saw this site and was curious. That is why I responded. Many of the distinguished individuals are rediscovering vintage cartridges indeed. It would be appropriate if they can also dig their curiosity in the readings of the 60s, 70s, and 80s in publications such as AUDIO, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc.. I have all of these in my collection and very informative reading indeed.
Lived with many of the cartridges all of you mentioned. Some in my estimation are better than others.
The only way one can determine a product is to make it subject to rigorous A-B comparison.
For example, when I had the original XLM I truly marvelled with the transparency and purity of this cartridge (for its day). When I heard the BSR revision XLM III and Super XLM (non-Pritchard) the cartridges lost their proper focus, immediacy and naturalness that the original had. If I did not make the comparison, they were OK. But, Violin sound just suffered and sounded veiled in comparison -- all of this with the same tonearm and components. So I would have to say that when the reviewers in the Absolute Sound had what they had to say, and at the time I fully agreed with them.
I have some audiophile friends which had these cartridges and also had similar experiences to mine.
Please note also that no two original XLMs sounded completely alike. That was very unfortunate. The original XLM I bought back in 1971 from Dixie Hi-FI (which I paid just $29 for it) was absolutely gorgeous. Never have heard London CS-6563 sound more translucent. When I bought another one from another dealership, it was not bad but didn't have the magic of the older one. Therefore, sample to sample variations...once more..
Manufacturer tolerances were very hard to achieve in those days (sometimes they are even hard to this day!)
Timeltel:
I am not preaching gospels just going through the chapters in the history books, which I can probably fill a long disertation here.
As far as The Signature III: It is a difficult pickup to install. It demands a very inert tonearm (todays tonearms are much better than ever before). If you can find one you will be rewarded by one of the best holographic experiences in cartridge design. It is not damped therefore minute undulations in the grooves will excite the cantilever assembly and the dreaded and famous belly-dancing that Grados were famous for would occur. In my estimation, the ideal tonearm should be made out of cork or bamboo (try Schroeder). Once this is accomplished the dancing will stop and you will be waltzing the dance on your own, not the cartridge. It should also be used with very pure copper interconnects (not silver) - tangential tracking is very beneficial.
Results: Outstanding purity, dimensionality and truthful timbre without sizzle or brightness. It is one of my true treasures and a bargain now if you find one in good shape. Compare to many Moving coils I find the Siggie III properly installed even more satisfying. However, please note, another dilemma: Sample to sample variability as well.
A hand-made product by the legendary Joseph Grado. |
Downunder, Funny that you should mention tubes because that is as close to a description of the differences I hear when playing MM/MI cartridges on the Copperhead compared to the Phantom and DaVinci. There is no single facet or area of difference.....it is a quantum leap in overall performance that is akin to listening to an entirely different system which puts your old one in the shade. The air, transparency and depth sound like the very best valve preamps and amps whilst the soundstage expands enormously. Combine this with an almost total lack of audible distortions which are now just too evident on the moving coils.
On the moving coils, the Copperhead was not better than the Phantom with every cartridge whilst the Universe suits the DaVinci a bit better than the Copperhead. This is why I am so puzzled by the complete transformation of the MM cartridges in the Copperhead and the total domination of it over the other arms? |
Regards, Aolsala:
Interesting read about the Sig. 111, thanks. Tonearm/cartridge matching is a constant concern and not an insignificant factor. Insights are always welcome. Relating to the suggestion you make about the use of copper IC's, would this be a capacitance or a cartridge voicing concern?
Incidentally, "preaching to the choir" is an oblique way of saying "heard it all before". Also, a very small apology is due, and offered.
Peace. |
Aolsala, You jogged my memory of the XLM. I too remember now about the sample to sample variation, which was quite broad (ranging from very good to very mediocre). I supplied an English dealer with several samples, purchased in bulk from a local discount house (in the Washington, DC, area). He and I noted that one or two of about 10 samples were grossly defective right out of the box. But they were so inexpensive that one never thought to complain about it; just buy another. |
Halcro,
Did you ever install the Ortofon M20FL Super on your Copperhead tonearm? If so did you find that it also outperformed your top MC cartridges on the DaVinci & Phantom? The M20 Fl super and ME super are now sold out on the Ebay German website, but they still have a very good supply of stylli.
Thanks for your input.
Regards, |
Aolsala, I can respect your experience, history, and opinions. But one thing you said really caused a double take -
"publications such as AUDIO, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, etc.. I have all of these in my collection and very informative reading indeed."
We had an internationally known high end store in San Diego in the '70s, Audio Directions. One of the owners had strong opinions regarding magazine reviews. He felt only two bits of information in reviews had any relevance; the component dimensions could tell if it would fit on your shelf, and the weight would suggest if the shelf might be strong enough to hold it. ;-)
I think the reviews by Richard Heyser in Audio were an exception but I still have a few copies of some of those magazines and most reviews read like manufacturer's ad copy.
Now enough of all this, back to the OP on MM cartridges . . . what's the latest discovery? |
Halcro
One area of the Phantom that is critical to performance is the damping fluid. Unfortunately changing the level of damping is a royal PITA. Have you played around with the damping fluid on the MM's
My exclusive P3/P10 have integral dampinmg fluid and a dial, so easy to dial in on what sounds best with each cartridge.
cheers |
The Signature III is not sensitive to capacitance but the voicing of the interconnect makes it very particular indeed. It is sensitive to resistance so in some preamplifiers as low as 12k to 10k ohms would be ideal matching.
Enjoy the music! |
Montepilot, I did install the M20FL on the Copperhead and it performed far better than on the Phantom II (as all my MM cartridges do). It was almost as good as the Garrott P77 but just missed out on the P77's three- dimensional 'air'. Both these cartridges exhibited the realism and beauty of the MM/MI character but they did not make the Universe or XV1s 'unlistenable' as is now the case with the Empire 1000ZE/X. Here is a link to a review I wrote on the P77 in relation to those LOMC cartridges with the conclusions towards the bottom Garrott P77This is why the Empire in the Copperhead in my system, has caused me to re-think the 'common' wisdom of the high-end reviewers and preachers? |
Downunder,
You may be right in that the adjustment of damping may well help the sound of the Phantom II with MM/MI cartridges as the Copperhead has no damping at all. But seeing that the DaVinci has no damping (although it has a double gimbal bearing system) yet still suffers from poor matching with the MM cartridges, I don't feel like removing all the fluid from the Phantom well just to experience some slight improvement when the Copperhead offers such immense superiority as it is? Besides, the damping in the Phantom is fine for the LOMCs which I still have mounted on my other 2 arms. |
Dear Halcro: The relationship between tonearm an a cartrridge is very complex due to so many factors that have influence.
It is not only the horizontal/vertical cartridge compliance along the tonearm effective mass that are more " numbers " than predict nothing about quality performance.
The cartridge is a very sensitive " microphone " that takes any single " vibration/distortion/noise " that are not part of the music recorded on the grooves and are those unknow " vibrations/distortions/noise " the ones that colored the full picture.
Where comes those VDN factors?, comes from the cartridge it self and from the tonearm cartridge and TT interaction. In each one of these links we have different kind of VDNs.
The tonearm is critical/crucial to damp/eliminate/lowering or change all or part of those VDNs. The simple list of VDNs is almost infinite: cartridge body build material, cartridge body shape, cartridge horizontal/vertical compliance, cantilever shape/build material/size, stylus shape/build material, cartridge mount screws build material, headshell shape/size/build material, tonearm whole build materials design and geometry/shape, bearing type, arm mount base, feedback on each of these links, etc, etc.
Each one of these " factors " has different kind of influence/color in the final picture, it is through all these factors where the different designers can: damp/eliminate/lower or change the " frequency resonance/response and find the mix that makes less harm to the cartridge signal.
Through our tonearm self design in the last three years of research and tests we found that one of the factors with a main importance in a tonearm is in the tonearm build material. This factor can makes the difference against other tonearm design factors like bearing, arm mount, internal wire, etc, etc.. That's why we are taking so long time to finish our tonearm, right now we are very close to.
It is true that the kind of bearing/pivot has an important influence but if a tonearm design has a low bearing friction, fast bearing response to movements and smooth movement then you are " on target ".
If you analize your Continnum it has at least two characteristics that makes the difference ( for the better ) against your other two tonearms: build material ( that is a especial blend. ) and shape choosed for damping.
It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges.
The fact that you like many of us " can't hear any more LOMC cartridges " has IMHO no direct relation with tonearms ( alone/it self. ) but with the quality intrinsic LOMC cartridges performance against what we prefer: the " different " MM/MI intrinsic quality performance.
As I said the cartridfe/tonearm whole subject is really complex and not easy to analize and not easy to measure or modeling a computer simulation to achieve precise answers. Certainly we can go in deep about in this thread and certainly not through my post that is mere enunciative.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I'm sorry: this is what had been writed :
"""" It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges than your other tonearms. """"
and at the post end:
"""" Certainly we can't go in deep about....""""""""
Raul. |
Aolsala,
It's wonderful having the benefit of your years of experience added to the already present contributors. Please share your insights into "Empire" which was a competitor while you where an engineer for Stanton. I look forward to hearing your knowledge.
Sincerely, |
Dear Raul, It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges. Well......not quite. As I explained, with LOMC cartridges, the Copperhead is not better than the DaVinci or Phantom II on all of them, and even when it might be on one of them, it's not by that much. It's only on the MM/MI cartridges that the Copperhead is totally in a different league. Nothing about the design of the Cobra/Copperhead suggests to me why this should be.......except when I read Mark Doehmann's description of the 'low arm mass over the pivot point'? Now I wonder Raul, if you have experimented with this feature in your 3 year-long study into tonearm design? Also, if you have not personally heard the Cobra/Copperhead arms with MM/MI cartridges, you may be missing a helpful 'clue' to your own designs? I realise there are few people with Cobra/Copperhead arms out there who can verify this observation but I thought that if this 'low-mass' feature could possibly be an explanation, there may be other arms out there with a similar feature with which to try out this experiment? A perfect arm for this feature seems to be the Schroeder arms where the mass at the pivot point is not increased in any way over the rest of the arm. If anyone out there has a Schroeder and a vintage MM/MI cartridge it would be interesting to receive their feedback. Following is a list of potential arms which could also prove/disprove this theory:- SCHROEDER WELL TEMPERED (only 1 model I think) MICRO SEIKI MA-202 & MA-303 THOMAS SCHICK 12" ORTOFON SMG-212 12" REED 12" 47 LABS RS-A1 If you could also possibly beg borrow or steal one of these arms Raul, it would certainly be an interesting experiment and one that could possibly help you in your 'ultimate' arm design? |
Dear Halcro: I have on hand the RS-A1 and three other unipivot tonearms along the SMG-212 that along other vintage and today tonearms ( including the Schroeder. ) I tested with LOMC and MM/MI cartridges. No I don't had yet the opportunit to try the Cobra/Copperhead in my system and as you said not easy that I can have it but I will look for it in some way.
I don't know if you remember in some other thread when we were talking about effective mass, VTF and pivot tonearm bearing friction, in that time some other persons and me point out of the importance of the " mass " that the cartridge/tonearm were " seeing ": in reality the cartridge does not see only the VTF but the tonearm " bulk mass " around ( I can't explain very clear because I don't have the right words. ) and this " bulk mass " has influence in many ways like tracking.It is the same at pivot bearing design where it is not only important a low friction but low " bulk mass " to move. What I really don't know is in which way this factor has its influence and how we hear/heard that sole " influence ".
Our tonearm design is not a unipivot one but we are using jewels at the bearing like Cobra.
++++++ " It happens that the Copperhead/Cobra overall is a better WHOLE match to cartridges. " ++++++
this is an easy answer, the Copperhead makes that those cartridges performs better.
The real subject is: why? and for this " why " I don't have a precise answer because IMHO it is not a individual factor the one that can give the right answer but many factors like the ones I posted along that low mass at pivot/bearing tonearm and other ones. Almost all those " factors " when one change all the others " response " change and what we heard change too.
As a fact there are many differences between the Copperhead and the other tonearms you own, a hard task for any one to find the precise answer about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, In my very brief experience, I came to the general impression that the RS-A1 is exceptionally good with MM/MI cartridges. Or to put it another way, whatever faults the RS-A1 may have, it does work best with MM/MI cartridges. Do you agree? |
Dear Lewm: Yes, I agree: it is better with MM than with LOMC low compliance cartridges, maybe because these ones puts more " pressure " to the pivot due to that low compliance.
It is in some ways a frustration that we can have a true and precise answers on so many questions about tonearm/cartridge/TT whole subject.
Regrads and enjoy the music, Raul. |
What's interesting is that there is such a large number of possible combinations that one cannot with confidence say any particular cartridge is bad unless it is grossly defective. There is always the possibllity that the right tonearm and tt can make any particular cartridge sing. |
Dear friends: For those with interest on the AT 20SS/15SS now you can read the latest experiences that Dgarretson posted on the 20SS review with the 20SS stylus replacement in his 15SS cartridge. IMHO worth to have that original ( NOS ) 20SS stylus replacement, even if you don't have the cartridge ( 20/15) yet!
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, Where is Dave's review of AT20SS? I've got an older ATxxSS cartridge that fits the AT20SS stylus, and an AT20SS stylus as well but have not auditioned the combo yet. |
Lew, With just several hours break-in after mounting the AT15SS body, the AT20SS stylus sounds so much better than the(identical in appearance) AT15SS stylus, that I question whether my eBay-purchased AT15SS could have been NOS as advertised. The AT20SS stylus does it all: airy detailed treble, expansive soundstage, weighty and controlled LF, lots of color & dynamic contrast, and most of the feeling of honesty. One of those moments where one says "Enough." |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " on the 20SS review " +++++, here:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1280374200
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Thanks, Raul. I think I have a used AT15Sa plus an AT20SS stylus. I also have a bunch of Acutex stuff to audition. |
Dear friends: If you are interested now is ready the AKG P100-LE review. Click on my moniker " reviews " to read it.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Your reviews are becoming even better Raul. Congratulations. I envy you the AKG P100-LE and wish you could sell me your 'spare' one? How much did you pay in 'NEW' dollars if I might ask? |
Dear Raul, That is one phenomenal review (of the AKG P100LE). A few months ago I picked up an AKG P8ES vdH II. How would that one relate to the P100LE. I wonder since in both cases the stylus was made by vdH. My cartridge is very similar in appearance to the P100LE, except it lacks that red insignia on the forward aspect of the stylus assembly. |
Being a latecomer to this thread what would you recommend to be the best matching MM for the FR-66s /Fr-66fx or the Cobra/Copperhead? |
Raul, thank you for the brilliant review of the AKG. The odds of running into one of these are pretty slim, so I really appreciate the opportunity to read about it. I'd love to hear it someday but in the mean time I'll be pleased to continue with my little arsenal that was acquired as a direct result of this thread :)
Jim |
Dear Thuchan: Welcome a board, never is to late.
Even that most MM/MI cartridges are " friendly " IMHO the FR66 is not the best match for them. In the other side the Cobra/Copperhead are very good with MM/MI cartridges, here you can read what Halcro a Copperhead owner posted about:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&2565&4#2565
so almost any MM/MI cartridge could works fine in the Cobra/Copperhead.
Here are some fine cartridges that you can try with:
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=BOMMC2&Category_Code=B_O
http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=NAGAOKAMP500&Category_Code=NAGAOKACART
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Raúl/Mis%20documentos/Grado%20Amber%20the%20tribute.htm . Look for Grado The Tribute.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bang-Olufsen-B-O-BEOGRAM-3000-MMC-1-Cartridge-/120607348083?pt=UK_AudioTVElectronics_HomeAudioHiFi_Turntables#ht_572wt_1137
this auction is for the TT that comes with the B&O top of the line MMC1 cartridge. The MMC1 is a B&O hand selected MMC2 cartridge. You can ask/pictures the seller in which condition is the cartridge and if it is in good one then this is very good offer( bargain. ).
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Can anyone share experience using these MM/MI carts with an Audio Technica AT-1100 arm? I believe Audiocraft was the manufacturer. Its higher mass sibling, the AT-1010, appears well-regarded but the AT-1100 has little "press". Both arms are of very similar, perhaps identical, design except for armwand/headshell. By description they both were thoughtfully engineered during the golden age. How might the AT-1100 compare to low mass competitors of its era, such as the SME Series 3?
Thanks in advance to all. |