Dear Halcro: The one I tested was the 6SE. About compliance you can check against the XV-1 (with VTF in between: 1.8grs to 2.0 grs. ) and see how the FR cantilever with the same VTF than the XV-1 ( I just do it. ) goes down a little further that the Dyna one. Anyway 10cu that you and me can't be sure is the real value at 10hz ( instead 100hz that normaly is the Japanese reference. ) IMHO belongs in the low side of medium compliance. Maybe in those very old 63 times even the high FR mass tonearms did not exist: I don't know but this is not the real subject.
+++++ " whilst the EPC100MK3 is just a little more 'neutral'.....possibly a tad more 'flat' or 'accurate' if you like " +++++
IMHO the Technics is all what you said where the 6SE is on the " colored " side in a frequency range ( around 45hz-70hz, I can't be sure exactly. ) where my ears are really sensitive and where harmonics ( and up ) puts its " grain of colored salt ". I think that that " rich deep bass " you mentioned could means everything about that cartridge colorations. Btw, I don't want to go in deep what I heard through the FR64 against the Lustre and the other tonearms I used.
In the other side I agree that the G-940 is not the best for the 20SS ( my review was on a different tonearm. ) where you have to find the right headshell match. I don't know why but a not easy cartridge for the Grace tonearm.
+++++ " It's a litle disturbing since we agree on most other things and my experiences with the Signets appear to match quite well with Timeltel's " +++++
the latest up-dates to my system ( including the electrical power supply " direct connection ". ) IMHO lowering so down/much system overall distortions that the self/own system limitations factor ( about quality performance level/resolution. ) goes two-three steps down given it a resolution where we can detect " sounds/colorations/errors ) that I was unaware before the audio system up-dates.
Any audio system has limitations ( many kind. ) and is this limitation system factor the one that permit or preclude to " hear things " or hear things at different quality level.
Your system as my system and other people system has lower or higher limitation factor level and this factor makes differences.
I don't know you or other persons here but if it is true that I take every single opinion very seriously and that I give the right importance to all opinions it is true too that I always analyze the " environment/stage " that surrounded/surround that single person opinion, including my opinions!
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Dlaloum: "Fixed coil cartridges exibit phase shift because of electical resonances (at frequencies typically in the audible band) due to the 2,000 to 3,500 turns of wire in the coils...usual method to damp down these resonances is to load down output with capacitance...adding to phase shift, just as mech. damping does". One of the clearest descriptions of the value of matching capacitance to cartridge I've read.
Good reference for this thread, not a far reach to extrapolate an explanation for the ability of lower-output MM's to generate a more "refined" signal but with (IMHO) a reduction of texture. If this "texture" is percieved as distortion, let's not overlook that by modulating the frequency of the resonance waveform, the timbre changes. By adding and subtracting harmonics by design, a controlled enhancement or cancellation is possible. Thanks for the link.
Have you tried other styli with your TK6 (not AT's 6006, my bad)?
Peace,
|
Dear Halcro: I forgot, please test the FR at continuous 95db SPL at seat position with around peaks on the 102db for at least 20-30 minutes and see what " happen ", what is what you experienced?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Thanks, Nicola. It would appear based on your contribution that some of the other FR tonearms might indeed be more suitable for the FR cartridges that Raul and Halcro own. But now Halcro states that in fact the compliance of the cartridges is indeed rather low and probably suited in a technical sense for use in an FR64S. (I also think we have to include the "S" designation, because the S version of the 64 has higher effective mass than the other versions.) Anyway, here I am speculating about stuff I do not own and probably never will own.
Timeltel, You suggest that low output MM cartridges lack "texture", I think is what you wrote. But I am here to tell you that the 980LZS in the Kenwood L07J tonearm has remarkable ability to convey musical texture. In fact, that is its forte, IMO. I am listening alternately to the Acutex LPM320 in a Dynavector tonearm and the Stanton in the L07J. The former cartridge puts the spotlight front and center on the central performance. The latter one casts perhaps a wider soundstage and brings the collateral supporting artists into a wider, paler light. The feel is like that of lying down on a comfortable divan to enjoy music at leisure. This is all about texture, I think. |
Hi Timeltel, yes indeed - also I have read references to a paper Ortofon put out in the late 70's or early 80's about their "Ortophase" methodology, theory etc... But so far I have not been able to find a copy.
The trouble with using resonance to correct frequency response is that it messes with phase. This clearly applies to both electrical and mechanical resonance (circuit of capacitive cables / inductive cartrive, and Cantilever/suspension respectively).
The graphs in that Article clearly demonstrate it - the phase non linearity is always associated with a resonant peak - it either coincides with it, or begins with the resonant peak and then gets worse with increasing frequency. In most cases the resonant peaks seem to be a design choice linked to Frequency Linearity at the expense of phase.
I found the TK6 on fleabay - it was delivered to me with an AT102p conical fitted...
Didn't think that this would be indicative of its performance - choices out there came down to either AT150MLx or 440MLa.... given that I didn't know what its "sound" was like, I couldn't justify the cost of the 150.... so the 440 it is!
It arrived a little over a week ago but I havn't had a chance to listen to it enough to characterise it.
I'm still working on the phono / loading side of things before I get back to listening.... |
Dear Raul, please test the FR at continuous 95db SPL at seat position with around peaks on the 102db for at least 20-30 minutes and see what " happen " Can't do this Raul and stay healthy. My wife would put her favourite cleaver to good use. I listen at an average 85-90dB with peaks up to 96dB. Going up to 102dB is only possible when she's out and that isn't happening due to health reasons? Regards |
Received my FR-5 cartridge from Japan yesterday and have been listening to it all day in the Orsonic headshell on the FR-64s tonearm with the Victor TT-81. Whilst its sound is similar to the FR-6SE, to me it is hardly a 'refinement'? What the FR-6SE does, the FR-5 does 'more'......but not necessarily in a good way. The luscious mid-range and bass of the FR-6SE is exaggerated even more so in the FR-5 to the point of being 'unbelievable'? The treble performance from about 2K Hz upwards also rolls off so that the total presentation is the complete opposite of any MC cartridge and in fact most other cartridges I have ever heard. Now it is not unpleasant....in fact it's totally intriguing.....but it's also not 'real'? It is useful to play 'hot' LPs, for instance 'Dusty in Memphis' and 'Heavy Weather' by Weather Report which I find slightly 'brittle' and 'sharp' in the upper registers. These LPs become most enjoyable through the FR-5. Does that mean it's good as a "tone control"? You bet......but aren't all our different cartridges an exercise in 'tonality'? So to these ears the FR-6SE is a superb refinement of the FR-5 and gets the important things right. Can we really ask much more of a cartridge? |
Funny, I seem to be gravitating the other direction at the monment.
Due to me borrowing a ESC rebuild of a Linn Troika, I had to move my main MC phono in order to play my Linn/ARO with the Troika. This was my ultimate table/cartridge combo in 1988. Sounds wonderful, except not much bass at the moment. It's only had a few hours on it, so it may get better in the bass.
I then had to use a Ortofon MC step up transformer to use my XV-1 on the Phantom. Guess what, I really like the sound the transformer is giving. Really great synergy. Yes Raul, sacrilage and anti sematic I know
Bottom line in my system, outside my Technics EPC 100 Mk4, I mostly prefer MC cartridges. Not that there is anything wrong with MM's.
back to you your normal programming and MM cartridge of the month review :-) |
Dear Halcro: Usualy I listen at 83db-84db but when I'm testing my system or a " new " item/cartridge I always make two tests: I heard at around 76db on SPL ( continuous at seat position. ) and at around 95db.
The latest one give you very clear the distortion levels of that item/cartridge and at the same time shows you different " errors/unaccuracies " of that same item that at normal SPL you almost can't be aware of it. Btw, almost all could sound " decent " at 84db: but how good is an item or even your system at a SPL continuous/seat position 76db and 95db with recordings that more or less has a good average SPL over the recording ( I mean with out " piannisimos ". ) ?
IMHO the 5 has lower distortions than the 6se and maybe that's what you are hearing.
This morning I returned both cartridges is not useful for me following on listen tests wwith cartridges that IMHO and in my system does not shows something " interesting " or something that can motivate more listening time, enough for me and as Downunder posted I have to keep walking with the cartridges of the month.
Next post: Signet freaks.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Dlaloum: "In most cases the resonant peaks seem to be a design choice linked to Frequency Linearity at the expense of phase". Exactly.
"If a particular range is dissimilar to others, there is then a lack of continuity. This phenomena can be described as an anomally. It makes no difference how it's achieved, elimination of these anomallies is the imperative. Once effected, the outcome is a correctly balanced configuration. A...(cartridge)... capable of tonal accuracy and realistic harmonic blending is said to be correctly voiced." Tools and technology are in place, how well done is another matter.
Lew: Your 980LZS is legendary. Lucky you, you braggart!
In retrospect, this must have had the appearance of the dreaded blanket statement. Mea maxima culpa. I understand the 980LZS is a privileged experience but does (looking for some wiggle room here) require additional gain from somewhere. Please excuse the oversight.
Regarding texture/color/accuracy, compare a Shure M44e (9.5mv) or one of the high output Empires (108 @ 8mV, the 2000E, 9.3mV), perhaps one of the contemporary Orto. "Club" carts, up to 11mV, to nearly any of less than 3.5mV. I think you get the drift.
Peace, |
I searched long and hard for that 980LZS, just out of curiosity and because of its exotic nature. I got this in very used condition off eBay. Sadly, I had a chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for it, but I procrastinated due to the cost and lost it to someone else. The original stylus did not fit firmly to the cartridge body; it's only held in place by friction. So I took a small elastic band and slipped it over both the body and the stylus assembly, so the two are firmly held together, and I imagine this also dampens some resonances. Works great. Just found an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus for it, which will have to do. But now I feel no compulsion to change immediately to a new stylus. The original is good to go so far. I really like it; Raul is not so fond of LZS, prefers the HZS version, which I would love to try too. |
Regards, Lew: "So I took a small elastic band". Suggest an upgrade to audiophile grade duct tape.
Peace, |
I searched long and hard for that 980LZS, just out of curiosity and because of its exotic nature. I got this in very used condition off eBay. Sadly, I had a chance to buy an NOS D98S stylus for it, but I procrastinated due to the cost and lost it to someone else. The original stylus did not fit firmly to the cartridge body; it's only held in place by friction. So I took a small elastic band and slipped it over both the body and the stylus assembly, so the two are firmly held together, and I imagine this also dampens some resonances. Works great. Just found an NOS Pickering D7500S stylus for it, which will have to do. But now I feel no compulsion to change immediately to a new stylus. The original is good to go so far. I really like it; Raul is not so fond of LZS, prefers the HZS version, which I would love to try too. |
by some weirdness the above post was posted twice. Dunno how I did that. |
Elastic band is better because it is easily reversible and because it applies a steady pressure on the junction between cartridge body and stylus, whereas with tape I am not sure I could do it. There would be too much danger of fouling the stylus. But you're joking of course.
That's one thing that bugs me about all MM cartridges. The most important interface, between the stylus assembly and the body, is often a perilous contact point. Maybe I should market those small elastic bands under the Harmonix brand for $100 each. |
Lew, what would you say to a silicon adhesive? One that does not harden and form a permanent bond so the stylus could be removed when necessary. It would require careful application to avoid any contact with the shank entering the cartridge body.
I don't have much experience with them so cannot offer a specific suggestion. |
I am happy with the elastic band. I don't think twice about it. But I suppose silicon adhesive would work, albeit it would leave a permanent mess that a putative next owner might not like. If someone wants to try it, I would love to hear about it. Only a few cartridges, e.g., the Stantons and the Pickerings, are amenable to this precaution, I was thinking. You can't do it with my Acutex, for example, because there is neither a place to put the elastic band safely so it won't foul the stylus assembly (and tear it off), nor a mating surface where you could apply adhesive with no fear of collateral damage. |
Hi Raul,
re: Listening levels
My own observations are that the Level dependency is very speaker related...
Some speakers need to be driven to a certain level before the details (in the recording) start to become apparent. - I used to have a pair of Klipsch Forte's that just wouldn't strut their stuff with a 100w amp, but with a 200W amp, and given a LOT of "stick" they were impressive...
Boston A400's didn't need the high powered amp as much (100W was OK) but they didn't wake up until a certain volume level was reached.
Quad Electrostatics on the other hand were quite the opposite - the challenge was making the environment sufficiently quiet - the micro and macro detail was always there, even at the very lowest volume levels... but sometimes obfuscated by environmental noise (aircon, footsteps, cars passing in the street etc...). Sure you could turn them up - but the detail was there from the very lowest volume levels.
Hence my next question - what kind of speakers are you using, and how do they respond at various levels?
Another speaker related issue - I found the electrostatics were always capable of providing detailed insight into the music and the recording space regardless of the complexity of the music itself (eg: large symphonic crescendo's)... my current Gallo Ref3.2's are very good but don't quite match the Quads (they had to vacate the premises due to WAF / Lifestyle issues.... but I hope to find a way to have ESL's again in the future). I believe the difference may in fact be related to phase coherence of the speaker. And it may in fact be impossible with some speakers to identify phase related cartridge/stylus variations as the speakers themselves become the limiting factor.
I would suggest that Headphones are the ideal phase coherent simple and economical solution.... it is far far cheaper and easier to build a good set of headphones than a good set of speakers.... and the cost / performance ratio of headphones to speakers is more than 10:1. (ie: a pair of Headphones will on average outperform a pair of speakers costing 10 times more.... ) In fact the cost performance ration between HP's and Speakers is probably around 50:1.
So rather than pushing SPL levels up in a search for additional detail - the simpler solution is to get a good set of Headphones.... They are a far more effective tool for critical listening. (Also tends to eliminate microphony issues!)
bye for now
David |
David, Having owned Quads and have active speakers now, I can relate to your comment regarding phase issues. Phase coherence is very important to me. While my speakers are very dynamic and effortless, I have listened often at very low volumes with great enjoyment. The key with that is what you said about low ambient noise. |
Dear Timeltel and all: I finished using the AT 1503 tonearm and the MG-10 headshells for all " four " cartridges: 5e, 155LC and TK10ML2. Halcro, as you point out, as with the 20SS these cartridges does not likes the G-940.
I will be briefly on what I experienced through these cartridge tests through not so brief tests:
the 5e is more an " entry level " on the MM/MI world that any other thing to say but " things " change when used with the 155LC stylus that's a totally different " stylus replacement ". What seems to me the 5e take it?, well it take several quality performance characteristics from the AT 155LC cartridge but mainly clarity/openess/HF definition/transient speed and perhaps lower distortion with a solid low end but not with the clarity and definition that shows at the other frequency extreme. All in all very good quality performance that in some ways is more appealing than the AT155LC it self. What I miss from the AT155 LC is that the Signet freak does not shows the same layering definition level and the lower bass coloration that the 155LC has.
Both cartridges near in its performance and maybe a choice on it dependent on each one priorities and audio system " signature ".
The Signet TK10ML3 IMHO is in other " row/ladder step " atop the freak and the AT155LC. It is not only a more whole refined cartridge but with a more natural performance with a top to bottom tonal balance/color hard to criticize. Each frequency range as each quality performance " parameter " in the 10ML3 is better than in the freak and 155LC.
Here we have to take in count that all these cartridges have different output level and for a comparison we need to approach even output level for all.
The TK10ML3 is at least in the same league than the Acutex LPM 315 where the freak and the AT can´t approach.
I made comparison against the Acutex because you ( Timeltel ) posted ( correct me if not. ) that the freak was at the same Acutex level performance ( maybe the audio system limitation factor level preclude that the Acutex can't shows its complete grandiosity. ) and IMHO it is not, there are " severe " differences. I think that the TK10ML3 and the Acutex are at least two steps further that the 155LC and the Signet freak on quality performance level but we have to think here that we are talking of the very top quality performance level.
Like with the FRs these tests were very good experience. Btw, the other cartridge that I had at the moment as a reference was the Sonus Dimension 5 that is mounted on the Grace tonearm with a Technics headshell, I'm hearing this latest Prichard cartridge design for at least three weeks: great great performer!.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul.
|
Regards, Raul: Very well considered post, perhaps the most significant statement: "I made comparison against the Acutex because you ( Timeltel ) posted ( correct me if not. ) that the freak was at the same Acutex level performance ( maybe the audio system limitation factor level preclude that the Acutex can't shows its complete grandiosity." The following is offered as neither applogy or argument, you hear what you hear and having followed this thread since it's inception, I respect your opinion.
In reviewing the given fr for the Acutex LPM 315-111STR, there is a 2-3 dbl drop between 20-30hz and again from 3 to 10k. This, the tri-magnet design, the particular stylus and titanium cantilever would largely account for the marvelous sense of presence found in the 315. With the 320 stylus, response is nearly ruler flat, other than a corresponding (2db.) drop between 3 & 10k. Perhaps it is a phenomena related to system performance but I hear a very slight muddiness in the bass with the 315, very well compensated for by the previously mentioned presence. I think these are the qualities you found objectionable in your audition of the FR carts, the same ones another found enjoyable.
This is where this sort of comparison becomes difficult, and the reason for my hesitance to recommend ANY audio related component. Specifications for my antique gear, a thing frequently refered to:
At 270 watts RMS, THD no more than 0.03%, at 135 watts, -0.02%. IMD at 135 watts RMS, -0.01%, at one watt, -0.006%. Freq. Resp 5-100k, +0, -1db. Noise (short-circuited), -120db. Turntable is another "oldie", as is the tonearm, a Techniques SP-15 with a EPA-250 TA. Speakers are four Paradigm Signature S4's, beryllium tweeters, fr (+- 2 dbl) from 35-45k, each on Atacama stands filled with a mix of lead shot and kitty litter. A correctly voiced (and integrated at 60hz) DSP active sub at the foot of each. Altogether, a fairly accurate and distortion-free outfit, just at the edge of clinical. With fourty-five years of involvment in audio, I'm fairly certain deviation from the signal is slight.
OK, in visiting your "virtual system" and through following the comments made in this and other threads, it is evident much care has been taken with performance and you are certainly entitled to a great degree of pride in this. I am, however, somewhat reminded of a friends' rig, $150,000 in Mac monoblocks, ClearAudio TT, Wilson/Puppy speakers, etc. If tubed IC's were available, he'd have them too. The outcome is bloated bass, garbled mids and hf's lacking definition. This is of course, my opinion, he thinks it's all good. None-the-less, he is welcome to his opinion "just listen to the power of that bass!" In this sense, your comment "the Acutex can't shows its complete grandiosity" possibly does reflect system differences but under no circumstances would I trade system performance (with my friend).
Please be mindful the above "over the top" rig is another's, but serves as a reminder that what appeals to one, another may find questionable. Just as with the Signet cartridges. If ten individuals find a thing pleasing and agree as to reason why, but another finds objection then does it stand to reason that the ten are trodgdolytes, we can't all be true sommeliers of sonics.
By the way, I do find the TK5/155lc superior to the Acutex 315 in accuracy, soundstaging, hf extension, retrieval of low level detail and particularlly in the ability to bring distinction to bass transients and decay. The Acutex 320 shares these characteristics with the TK5/155cl as compared to the 315 stylus. My comment was that the TK5/155lc and Acutex 320 were comparable, different voices but each has it's own merits. The Acutex 315-111STR continues to stand above all in terms of presence, "grandiosity". I personally prefer the 320.
I'm enjoying a TK7lca currently, there is an ambient air about it neither the TK5/155lc or the Acutex 315 exibit. IMHO it is the equal of and possibly (depending on all the above) the superior of the Acutex LPM 320-111STR.
All appropriate honor, Raul, as the originator and guardian of this thread, now into it's third year. Happy anniversary, 01-15-08. Your labor and skills are great, please accept that the exchange of opinion, experience and knowledge are some of the most valuable assets to this thread and it's understandable that from time to time, these may differ. Overall, I agree. It's a system thing.
Peace, |
Hi Timeltel, Raul,
could you guys please post... 1) The load capacitance of your phono stage and cables (total capacitance), 2) The Impedance/Resistance load used in the configuration, 3) The Inductance (and if possible resistance) spec of the cartridges tested...
LuckyDog on VE has posted a useful modeling spreadsheet which allows one to display the theoretical electrical response of a phono system given the above variables. (we are still working through ironing out the bugs in the model)
I strongly believe that (as per Timeltel's comments) perceived differences and subjective responses to cartridges/needles are primarily driven by F/R non linearities.
It would be interesting to graph the theoretical electrical response of the cartridges discussed - and then compare that response to the subjective listening responses.
Also the electrical response is independent of the stylus used - the stylus then adds into the mix a mechanical response.... the biggest drivers being 1) Stylus minor radius (Frequency Response and Distortion) and 2) Cantilever/Suspension design (phase response and frequency linearity driven by mechanical resonance)
This is also particularly interesting when you start hybridising the cartridges by mixing styli - the E-Response is identical, but the M-Response varies.... gaining an understanding of this interaction may be achievable with this type of testing.
Finally you cannot compare Cartridge / Stylus performance without the full loading parameters for that configuration, as the loading makes a HUGE difference to the F/R and hence to the tonality of the setup. (Regardless of the rest of the system... including tonearm/table)
Referring to High Fidelity Magasine's review of the "recently released" (1978) ADC ZLM cartridge...: The ZLM appears to be a little fussy about its loading - as are many other fine cartridges. Feeding a high quality feedback-equalized phono stage with no provision for custom capacitive loading (and an unknown input capacitance), the unit sounds like a first-rate phono cartridge; loaded correctly and isolated from undersirable interaction by a buffer stage, the ZLM is simply superb. (Article then proceeds to wax lyrical about the ADC ZLM ...)
Like I have said before - this setup sensitivity probably is what killed high end MM/MI...
Understanding how to best set these beasties up for optimal performance is therefore the key to unlocking their "Joys of Vinyl".... you might call it the Kama Sutra of Analogue.... The "Vinyl Sutra".
I would happily post some of the performance graphs from my own tests - but I don't see that there is a place for it on this forum....
bye for now
David |
Raul, Following on from the Professor's restrained repost to your Signet analyses, I find that you prefer the Signet TK10ML to the TK5/155LC? Here is my reaction to the TK10ML The TK5ea displays most of the typical Signet traits I hear with the TK3/155LC with a confident overall balance, believable midrange and robust bass output but the TK10ML sounds to have had a lower-end castratostomy? Add this to a somewhat 'missing-in-action' midrange and I have a cartridge which I am happy to assign to the FR5 leather-bound cartridge holder. It seems that system compatability and taste are rendering any recommendations on this thread a little meaningless? You love the AT20ss and the TK10ML.....and I will soon be placing these on EBay hoping that others are listening to you? |
Regards, Dlaloum: You left a message? Too much going on with the numerous r/m influences for an exact accounting. In broad strokes, output impedance 500-700 ohm, 100-200pF cap. 700-1200 ohm, 200-300pF. 1200-3xxx ohm, 300-400pF(+). In the good ol' days, the in-betweens were achieved with various IC's, except they were called patch cords back when. Next you dialed in some resistance & bumped the hf's, yes you did. Now there's that pesky "watershed" effect slopeing from the center of the increased frequency peak, oopsie!
And then, bonded styli, cantilever damping, boundary resonances, effects of mechanical ringing up and (suspect but cannot substantiate) down the harmonics, the unwanted sum and difference frequencies of the original frequencies spawned by those rascally intermodulations, got to find a fix for that too. Yada---.
Lotsa' luck. Be sure to post a link when conclusions are reached.
Peace, |
Dear Timeltel/Halcro: IMHO a main difference between the Signet freak, the 155LC and the TK10ML3 is on the " I'm here "/cartridge presence factor level:
IMHO the freak has the higher level where the 155LC is in between and the ML3 is the one where there is almost nothing between you and the music.
Yes differences in audio systems makes always a difference: a difference that I think is not like night and day ( I mean all of us are experienced music lovers with full understanding of what that means. ) but more related on that limitation performance factor level that at the " end of the day " means: different resolution level, different distortions ( any kind ) level and different accuracy level, even different system set up level.
About the 20SS you posted that the Grace and MS tonearms are a bad couple for the AT cartridge but this means only that: that those tonearms are not well suited for the 20SS and that's all. Right from the first moment ( years ago ) I posted in the main thread explanation the 20SS troubles I had with and on the official review you can read under which environment and tonearm I reviewed and yes I like it.
About the ML3 seems to me that you did not found out what to made/make for that great cartridge can shows you its real very high quality performance. I have to say that this one too is not an easy cartridge either but when you finally are " there " you just enjoy music with out nothing in between.
Good that you will put on sale both cartridges because maybe some other persons could enjoy them in a better way that you did not.
Maybe other factor that we have to take in count is that we are talking about quality performance level on vintage cartridges that were builded 30-40 years ago and that the majority of them we bought it second/third hand so differences on cartridge performance could be/happen only because of that. I have 4-5 samples of the Ortofon 20 FL/E Super and even that all have the Ortofon signature no one performs exactly the same in the same set up. This is only one example where I have other ones.
Dlaloum, I will give you my answer about your questions on the system SPL listening as soon is possible.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Halcro: Btw, other than in this thread and because is more easy to find out you can read in the 20SS review what Dgarretson posted.
In VE there are more 20SS owners that really enjoy the cartridge high quality performance. I'm not promoting nothing with this AT cartridge only an opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Regards, Raul: Your comments concerning the AT20ss- just out of curiosity, I checked the VE cart. database, output is 2.7mv. As is the AT15. Also recently mentioned was the TK10ML-111, 2.2mv.
Now I'm curious.
The Empire 4000D-111, 3.0mv. Grace F9-E, 3.5mv. Acutex 315-111STR, 3.5mv. Grado Amber Tribute, 1.5mv. AKG P100LE, 2.75mv. Tech. 100c M4, 1.2mv. 205c-111, 2.0mv.
Hmmm.
FR 5E, 5.0mv. FR6E, 7.0mv. Elac varies, but all are from 5.0-8.0mv. AT150, 4.0mv. Signet TK5e, 4.7mv. Grace F9-L, 5.5mv.
The first group of cartridges, you find pleasing, the other you relegate to cartridge perdition.
Is there is a pattern emerging and has it to do with cartridge output?
Just wondering if you had given this thought. Is there something awry with your phono pre?
Hmmm.
Peace, |
Hi Raul, Thanks for the reminder. I have a new wand made of ultra-lite balsa wood carbon fiber composite with several adjustable brass weights at each end to vary effective vertical mass. I'm going to remount AT20SS to this wand and see what results. |
Timeltel, Now that's interesting. Could you suggest what's necessary for a phono stage to accommodate those higher output MM? Mine is 48db gain with 300-1500mV headroom, which should not be untypical. |
Dear Timeltel/Raul, The first group of cartridges, you find pleasing, the other you relegate to cartridge perdition. Very interesting indeed.........? |
Timeltel....
an observation - usually lower voltage cartridges also have lower inductance. (more coils = more inductance and more voltage)
Lower inductance leads to more extended frequency response especially with low Capacitance.
AND if the electrical resonance is moved further out (preferably outside the audio zone ... ie above 20kHz) then you also get massively improved phase linearity.
I have been hunting out there for a stylusless AT150ea - why the older "ea" model? Because it has lower inductance than the later model (and along with that, chances are that the voltage is lower too...)
So it might also be worth having a comparative audition of an AT150ea vs an AT150MLX - they can "share needles" - and I believe Raul is likely to prefer the ea to the MLX.
There are other similarly interesting variances... AT10/11/12 all have higher inductance and voltage, but the AT12Sa has lower voltage and inductance.... that's the TOTL model in that range... |
Dlaloum touches on an interesting point that I had never fully appreciated but is obvious. In an MM cartridge, the coils reside in the cartridge body and stay with that body no matter what stylus "upgrade" one might employ. Therefore, would it not be true that when one puts, for example, an AT20SS stylus on an AT14Sa body (just using a random example of a lesser AT cartridge), one might not be getting the full benefits of "AT20SS sound", because the coils in an AT14Sa (assuming it is higher in output; I don't know) would impart a higher inductance than what one might get when mating AT20SS body and an AT20SS stylus? I would be interested to know what Dlaloum and Timeltel think about this. Many of us seem to be randomly mating cartridge bodies and styli, as long as they will fit together; this might not have a predictable outcome. |
***02-11-11: Dlaloum Timeltel....
an observation - usually lower voltage cartridges also have lower inductance. (more coils = more inductance and more voltage)
Lower inductance leads to more extended frequency response especially with low Capacitance.
AND if the electrical resonance is moved further out (preferably outside the audio zone ... ie above 20kHz) then you also get massively improved phase linearity.***
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not a description (partial) of MC cartridges, and their claimed advantages? |
Regards, All: First things first, there is no doubt in my mind that our thread father's phono pre is absolutely TOTL, there are times when a "sense of humor" do not transcribe well on the 'net, none the less, there is a real consideration with cartridge output matching the sensitivity of "phono in".
From a post, 1-20-11:
Consider the figures for cartridges generally described as "refined". Almost always 550 ohms or less, 3.0mv output or less and typically equipped with a stylus profile containing the description "micro" or "minature". Several in this category require additional gain for adequate input at the power amp.
Under these conditions, it is likely that one who enjoys the weight and body of a higher output cartridge would not find one with lesser output as satisfactory, or reflecting the most recent examples, the Signet TK10/2.2mv as compared to the TK5ea. As such, different listeners, dependent on the gear, might compare the TK7LCa to the TK7e (4.7mv vs. 2.7mv) and have entirely different opinions, one finding the lower output TK7"e" superb and the 7"ea" congested. Or, the next, again dependent on the gear, the lower output "e" lacking depth whereas the "ea" exibits greater vitality. Fill in all the "Audiophile" terms as you wish.
Raul, you constantly refer to the condition of "system dependent", in this you are totally correct and is a frequently underappreciated factor when making these comparisons.
Again, appreciation expressed for your energy and determination in puruit of excellence but I'm reminded of the admonition "The nice thing about standards is there are so many of them".
Peace, |
Regards, and a correction, dyslexia and I are old friends. The refered to post should have read 1-02-11, not 1-20-11.
Dlaloum, Lew(m), either of you care to speculate if compliance, or the range of "stroke" of the magnets relative to the coil's poles with alternate styli, effects output?
Frogman, Dlaloum posted a link to an Orto. publication from ?1983? last week, in it you will find more information related to this subject than I can relate in a reasonable usage of band width.
Dgarretson: Good question. In this instance, the reference is to phono section input sensitivity in mv. relating to cartridge output.
Ya'll have fun with this.
Peace,
PS, wireless connection is acting up, if double posted, please excuse. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " Any audio system has limitations ( many kind. ) and is this limitation system factor the one that permit or preclude to " hear things " or hear things at different quality level.
Your system as my system and other people system has lower or higher limitation factor level and this factor makes differences.
I don't know you or other persons here but if it is true that I take every single opinion very seriously and that I give the right importance to all opinions it is true too that I always analyze the " environment/stage " that surrounded/surround that single person opinion, including my opinions! " ++++++
that's what I posted and when I'm refering to " system dependent " is right to this SYSTEM LIMITATION FACTOR LEVEL ( SLFL ).
What you, other or me like it is not under discussion. IMHO almost all the persons that posted/post in this thread and several that read it but not post/posted are experienced music lovers with differences not on what they like it on the intrinsic meaning of MUSIC but more on score performances kind of level, I mean ( an example on classic music. ) you could like more a same score performance made under Solti direction than under Barenboim or you can like it more the woodwinds section performance level on the Berliner Philharmonihc than in the Viena one but these differences are not really a intrinsic MUSIC perception differences that can/could change our each one overall MUSIC meaning, I try to say that that does not change our perception of how a violin or double bass sounds ( intrinsic sound. ) and its instrument color performance ( as Frogman point out. ).
So for me and due that almost all of us are experienced music lovers what we heard in our system set up and the differences against what other person heard/hear through his system is mainly because that SLFL.
+++++ " Yes differences in audio systems makes always a difference: a difference that I think is not like night and day ( I mean all of us are experienced music lovers with full understanding of what that means. ) but more related on that limitation performance factor level that at the " end of the day " means: different resolution level, different distortions ( any kind ) level and different accuracy level, even different system set up level. " +++++
that too is what I posted somewhere and that maybe we need to re-read.
I can hear/heard in my system what the SLFL permit to hear/heard. If for example my system frequency range performance goes between 50hz and 10khz it is obvious that I can't hear almost nothing out of that frequency range or at least I can't hear it in a precise way, so my opinions will be under my very specific SLFL environment.
What happen when I read other person opinion that is way different from mine? my first question is not if I'm right or he is wrong but: why he is hearing what he posted? which is the SLFL against mine? ( it is a little more complex than this but it is only an example .)
I'm not worried because you like it so much those Signets freaks against what I like/perceive in my system about the other cartridges I compared against the freaks.
The answer is way simple: your system and my system have way different SLFLand that's all.
I don't think that you think your system is perfect. I know mine it is not and I know too its limitations.
How conscious we are of those systems limitations help to understand in better way other people opinions. I always like to put " things " in the " right "(?) context before give an opinion.
I don't like to speak on other person SLFL but I will do as an example of what I'm saying ( please take it in good shape, I know that anyone that " touch " in any way our beloved audio system could " hurt " us: this is not the purpose in this post. ):
maybe you could think that I'm unaware on your SLFL but lucky I'm: I'm not, things are that in that old times I was in love with Pionner.
I owned a full Pionner system with these items: integrated SA-9800, PL-630 TT and HPM-900 loudspeakers. A good entry level system for those no-high end times.
I was really proud on that system with my friends. Those speakers were good ones and when I seen in the Dady's Disco in Copenhagen ( four of them at the cealing on the dance floor/place. ) my proud goes to " heaven ": I can't belived!!"! ( you know what I mean?. ).
The PL-630 is still working in my brother's system and the speakers/SA-900 in a friend's home system.
I heard your SX that has the same phono stage than the SA. My dream in those years was to own the SPECS separate but I never had that kind of money ( but I heard it several times at dealer room. ) even I can't afford the very good Sansui items.
For today standards IMHO the SLFL in the SX/SA Pionner items is really high.
In those times existed a strong " war " between Japanese audio electronics manufacturers: Pionner, Sansui, Kenwood and the like where IMHO the main targets were on specs and item facilities ( how many " things " the item can do and how many " things/items " you can connect to that item. ) even led colors and how many " lights " the item has.
IMHO the take care on design was left as a second side, all of these audio items were full of ICs ( including your SX and my SA. ), poor layouts, passive and active parts that shows low level quality performance and where the most important target was on the item final price target to compete.
These kind of items were not the Japanese high end designs but only the commercial ones to make the more money they can.
I know your Paradigm too, so in some way I know more or less why you posted and post what you did and do. In the other side unfortunately ( you are welcome any time to do it. ) you don't know what I'm hearing.
As a whole I think that any of our systems ( any one. ) can/could give us at least a 70% to 80% of the 100% quality performance that could be achieved in a " perfect " system: a system with CERO SLFL.
The remaining/remained 20% is all about high end quality performance level. This 20% is what really makes the systems differences and the main factor on our each one opinions.
This IMHO is not what I like it but what I hear/heard it because we like what we have ( yes all of us want to improve what we have. ) even if it is not what we really want it as a final achievement.
Timeltel, I'm not trying to dimish your system and what you hear through it I only want to put things in context. As always this is only an opinion and of course exist always ( too ) the possibility that I can be wrong.
Btw, nice history on your friend tube 100K audio system.
By separate I will give the other answers/thoughts about input/output cartridge level and how the phonolinepreamp handle it.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul - thank you .... sometimes a bit of a reality check is required! I still recall with fondness my first "stereo" of Rotel Integrated, Radio Shack speakers and pioneer PL-320... I must say though that my first experience of high end, was with a pair of Headphones (Radio Shack - AKG OEM)... it was many years later that I purchased my first Electrostatics and managed to achieve a similar level of performance without headphones.
Timeltel - excellent point! - I had not considered the impact of compliance on stroke length, which in turn might affect the magnetics and result in increased output V.
I'll have a browse through some cartridge specs for any empirical info on compliance vs voltage taking into account inductance. (ie for a fixed inductance does V increase with compliance?) Empirical research is also of course limited by the fact that most cartridges were not sold with multiple styli - and comparing differing styli is difficult as the cantilever/pivot point length differs, and therefore stroke length would differ (regardless of compliance).
But I may ask someone who is more of a physicist - as there should be some means of calculating this - and it would be worthwhile understanding the "orders of magnitude" involved.
I do note that the same cartridges we have been discussing are either Quad or descendants of Quad cartridges, and that the Quad era, also coincided with the Ultra-Low-Mass / High Compliance Era.... Is this a coincidence? Or a link?
I think one of the difficulties in running many of these cartridges today is arm matching - the ongoing popularity of med/high mass arms means that many people have a setup that just doesn't suit these cartridges.
I recently picked up an ADC cartridge which I suspect to be a SuperXLM (based on its very low inductance - it is unlabelled) - I also have a virgin SuperXLM shibata stylus.... but with a compliance of 40 (!!) it really is a mismatch for my JVC QL-Y5F arm. (even with the servo damping... I am concerned about a resonant frequency of around 5Hz!!!)
Suits my Revox ULM arm very well mind you ... just fitting a cartridge is a PITA. (whereas fitting and aligning a headshell on the JVC is a quick and easy job - relatively)
In any case it is a perfect example of the genre - high compliance and low inductance, Shibata tip.... SuperXLM specs are 2mV and 3mV (Standard/Improved) - also consistent with the observations about low output.
bye for now
David |
Raul, Apropos of your remarks about system differences, I know full well that I have all my audio life been aiming for the accurate reproduction of Jazz, to include especially vocalists, small combos, and big bands. I never think twice about opera or classical orchestral music (altho big band jazz makes near similar demands as compared to orchestra). Plus, long ago I fell in love with planar speakers, especially ESLs, and OTL amplifiers to drive them. (OTL tube amps are actually a bad choice to drive Maggies or any full-range ribbon, actually.) I am quite happy trying to maximize with my biases and preferences always in mind. |
Lewm,
"I am quite happy trying to maximize with my biases and preferences always in mind." I think that is absolutely understandable.
Raul,
I think your points about SLFL are intriguing and well put. Maybe your levels of obsession are beyond most of us but - regardless of one's personal opinions - your commitment and experience-gained knowledge seem beyond repute. |
I think anyone posting here is well up in the obsession stakes.... otherwise we would happily be listening to the 50,000 tracks we have on our iPhone through little Apple earplugs.... Audiophiles are by definition perfectionists..... just a happy bunch of obsessive compulsive music fans...
bye for now
David |
Regards, Raul: Perhaps not all roads lead Rome but many do. Others may prefer alternative routes, the Appian Way is not the only approach to the great city nor is it a one-way street. "Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes." Voltaire.
Dlaloum: "Stroke/compliance/output" was offered, the better phrase might have been "influence on cartridge response consequent to duration of stroke". Inductance and impedance are invariables. Duration and amplitude?
"The ear is the avenue to the heart". Again, that rapscallion, Voltaire.
Peace, |
Dear Lewm: Yes our MUSIC preferences is how we are biased and yes a Jazz full orchestra IMHO put similar system demands than big classical scores.
I never be a " fan " of ESLs till I heard Soundlabs ones and you know why: because IMHO it does not sounds as an ESL but as MUSIC.
The ones that own Guillermo ( close friend and tonearm co-designer ) like me a lot. I think it is the latest version first step down the top of today Soundlabs line. Curious, the Soundlab designer recommended him to mate it with the JC-1s. Guillermo owned Halcro amps that works good with that ESLs but the " magic " belongs to the JC-1s match: no contest by Halcro ones. OTLs?, I reserve my opinion about.
A short history:
one day I received a phone call from Guillermo who ask me to meet him at his home with out any precise additional information. I go there and for my surprise ( other that its " monumental " size. )I saw his Soundlabs already " mounted " in his audio room. A surprise to me because 10 days before he had not these speakers. Things are that he take a flight to Utha for listen these and other speakers ( Wilson. ) and been there by the Soundlabs designer's hand he bought it and take it under his " arms " and return with.
I asked why he decided for Soundlabs instead Wilson and other great speakers out there, he told me: " these speakers has the nearest sound to what I heard/hear in your system " and yes he is right and that's why I like it so much.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " The first group of cartridges, you find pleasing, the other you relegate to cartridge perdition.
Is there is a pattern emerging and has it to do with cartridge output?
Just wondering if you had given this thought. Is there something awry with your phono pre? " +++++
well I don't think that I " relegate to perdition " any cartridge yet.
IMHO the cartridge output level is almost irrelevant when you auditioned it to be aware of its quality performance level if you always work at the same system SPL that in my case is 84db at seat position. I know that some phonolinepreamps shows different inaccuracies in frequency linearity response at different control volume position but this is not true in my electronics.
In theory as Dlaloum point out a lower output level in a cartridge means lower inductance and less wire from where the audio signal must pass through. If in theory is important " on the road " things are not exactly the same. Many LOMC advocates said that lower MC output cartridges sounds better than higher output ones and this is not totally true because if it is true that the XV-1s ( low output ) has an excellent quality performance level it is true too that cartridges with higher output like Clearaudio are great performers too.
IMHO the cartridge design, quality design execution and cartridge set up are the key for determine quality performance level in any cartridge.
In the other side, I raved on all these " high output " ( 4mv and up ): Shure ML140HE, Sonus Dimension 5, AT ML180-OCC, Empire 600LAC, ADC 25, Astatic MF-200, Azden YM-P50VL.
Btw, no I'm sure there is nothing awry in my phonolinepreamp as you could think.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hubris is a really good word. Going walleye fishing/hiking for several days, water still too cold to chance kayaking. All appropriate disclaimers, IMHO and gear dependent, but cold it definitely is. And wet. Just to a walleye's taste, and they, roasted over an open flame, to mine.
"Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence." Max Ehrmann.
Keep it in the groove, |
David,
I only referred to "levels of obsession" and would not wish to deny anyone the label of obsessive. |
Dear Timeltel: I forgot, the phono stage MM overload level in my electronics is 500mv that like in the Dgarretson gear it is not only an overkill value but a healthy/cool peace of mind in the subject.
I forgot too that I rave on my Elac cartridge as in the Empire 750 LTD both very good performers and both " high output " ones.
Btw, do you already heard or own a Micro Acoustics cartridge?, well after a long time I'm just listening to one of my Micro Acoustics cartridges, this time the 630MP and " a priori " it is a revelation for say the least, I will give it more playback time and will report about.
Next in line the Shure M140HE, I want to listen again.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul and Timeltel, just for the sake of mentioning it, at 5.0 mv output per channel the Empire 1000ZE/X is another a stout one that has been highly regarded in here ;) Regards, Jim. |
Raul, I have never heard your speakers, of course, but they are so different in every way from a Sound Lab ESL that I am very surprised to learn there is a similarity in sound. Re solid state amplifiers: I have been involved in an extensive revision of my OTLs for the past several months. Finally, I could not stand to be without music, so after much research I bought a Parasound A21 stereo amp. The A21 is baby brother of the JC1s, the differences being stereo on one chassis vs monoblocks, separate power supplies for driver stage and input stage in the JC1 vs A21. Otherwise, the actual ss devices used in the two amps are identical with fewer output transistors in the A21. I can only say that the A21 does a fantastic job driving my Sound Lab spkrs, and if I were going to continue to use a solid state amp, I would go for the JC1s in a heartbeat. Meantime, the A21 must be the bargain of the century for what it does as compared to its modest cost. Still, I am very anxious to get back to my OTLs. |
Dear Dean_man: Yes you are right. That along the Garrot P77 were raved here for several persons including me.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Well some weekend where you have time take a flight to México city and I'm sure we can have a good and fun time.
Yes, the JC-1s are better than its price could " say ". Another friend has it matched with big Dynaudio Evidences and performs great.
Those Parasound were designed by John Curl.
Btw, one question that emerge here is: how is that can we get and buy this kind of high quality performance through amplifiers at that " low " price when other amplifier manufacturer designs charge you 10+ times that price for almost similar quality performance?.
Rgerads and enjoy the music, Raul. |