Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Standards Aplenty

Flashed all their experience with care
Flashed all splitting the philosophers' hair
Laying before all their thoughts with care
Speaking audio truths where
others only wondered
Plauged by Hegel's intermnable pen stroke
Disdainful of the ancients, of Kant they spoke
Of tubes and proven vintage
and where cascoded blundered
Measurment or implementation
They charged forth and back
You must fix said each
What the other had sundered.
The 980 your kidding pray tell
The pragmatist with shock, it fell?
You SOLD it, a thought from hell
FOOL what were you thinking the blues
O well
Get pickering D3000 through
7500 and hold fast you rue
replacement cost as the
day you were born. no that
doesn't make sense. said the gipper
send it to the tipper
and maybe dog nipper
will bark his
approval to you
forget not the goo
fix the tip in lieu
of gooey super glue
Its solvent will take
out the plastic and you will no longer fake
for heritage sake
the sound of the one not half bake.
Methodology one and all
the cart did fall
a wheel broken is now a plough
The cart pushed the horse as it got loud
and loud to fill the hall
said one and all
we are having a ball
even though we Kant hear
I know not what said but please pass me a beer.

Dear Professor, Exactly what I meant by your prose; your post from 06-15-11. There are foreigners among us, you know, and you should also, I quess, not assume that your Anglo&American readers have all a degree in English literature(grin).

MM regards,
Alas, Alack
By Fleib I'm outdone
Off to the hall
Some beer
and some fun
So much thought
So much consternation
From this sobriety
I must vacation
Dear Lew, Some added info about 'your' Sartre. He was also
accused by the French C.P. to be a 'petit bourgeois'. I am familiar with the communist terminology and even with Marx 'surpuls value' theory but I was never able to understand the importance of the prefix 'little' before
'bourgeois'. I always thought that the communist were only
interested in 'huge undertakings' so this little bugger caused much trouble .''Whay deed they not used 'huge bourgeois' in stead '' , I thougt. Then by, say, comparition with a 'huge capitalist swine' one would be able to explain what the fuss is about? But what can you do with an comparition with an 'little capitalist'?
But you know Sartre has luck to live in France. Even de Gaulle defended him and stated something like: 'the French will never arrest our Voltaire'.
In the East bloc however the situations was very different.
The (dis)qualification 'petit borgeois' was worst then the
death penalty. Ie if you were 'normaly' death then there was a at least the chance that someone would talk about you. But no
chance that anybody would talk about you if you were 'petit bourgeois'.
So,dear Lew, with your public admission regarding Sartre you may be in trouble. I hope that there are no real communist among you friends.

Regards,
Pls. no vacation - at that stage it has reached such a fantastic niveau! it is hard to believe that the philosophers among us need any lecture any more...

best & fun only - Thuchan
Hi Raul,
do you have any chance recently yo hear your AT24 cartridge?
I sourced original body and styli and I'm pretty impressed by it.
The 980 and 981 are the same cart. The 981, if there was one, came with a matched stylus. I'm told that the low output is far superior. I don't doubt it. This came from as guy called desktop, a pro who used to post on VE. I suspect that any who prefer the high out have inferior hi gain capability. The 7500 is the Pickering counterpart to the 980. The specs are identical. The stereohedron is said to be similar to a shibata. The whole stylus assembly is the weak link imo. That's seems to be true with virtually all carts with removable stylus. Fixing the assembly to the body is mandatory for optimum performance.
With an output of 0.3mV, there is virtually no inductance.

Mine will eventually go to Soundsmith for a ruby/micro LC. The only saving grace of the orig alum cantilever is the short length. Shibatas sound soft in the extreme high end. That can sound nice but it's all in what you like. ATs seem to sound better with the plastic stylus holder removed like a Clearaudio. All the voodoo and witchcraft gets a little tiring. It's not all that hard to figure out what does what. Deciding what you like is much harder I think. Most of us have a wealth of good stuff.

One of the main advantages of a MC is the cantilever is fixed. That's also cause for concern. It makes the mounting and arm more critical with respect to vibration and energy dissipation. The MC is the ultimate cart as far as dealers are concerned cause it demands much more high dollar sales. Many do think the MC is the ultimate. At this point I really don't care. Even though 99% of my listening is jazz, I can hear a difference between a good and a better cart. Is forgiving a trait of compromised performance? If so then I think we need different sounds for different records. My records are all over the place and unless you're one of those guys who play a few audiophile records, yours are too.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, I assume then that you own a 980LZS. Yes? I am listening to mine in the L07J tonearm which is the installed tonearm on the Kenwood L07D turntable. It does sound a bit reticent in the highs, but I cannot tell whether that might be due to the old (Litz) wiring in the L07J and the connectors in the signal path. To me Litz wire typically sounds a bit that way per se. In any case, I have no complaints with the treble performance. I am waiting for an eruption from Raul, to your remark about the hi vs lo output versions of the 980. I have never heard an HZS, so I have no opinion about how the two compare.
Dear Lewm, Yes, a couple of years ago I was visiting the KAB site and happened to go to the cart section. Kevin was selling the 980 in both hi and low. I didn't need Desktop's recommendation to choose the low. BTW, he thinks the 980LZS might be the world's finest MM. I don't know about all that. I know that I like it. For around $100 I got the body and for an additional $80? I got a Pickering D3001. That's a .2 x .7 ellip. I also have a Jico D81 bonded shibata. The Pickering has more finesse. Kevin at KAB told me that the Stanton is the finest tracker he ever had on a 1200. It was the only cart he tested that could complete his torture test record.

That's a wonderful table you have there. I have a couple of Kenwood DD, but not an LO-7D. Maybe you're just using the arm? I suspect your termination, tranny or load, might have more to do with the character of the sound. It was very strange for me when I first played the cart. I have an AHT prototype phono stage. I loaded it at 100 ohms, 67dB gain and got only midrange. It was the best midrange I ever heard. Funny, as I changed the load and broke in the cart, that same midrange wasn't quite as spectacular any more. Glorious by default? I took it up to around 2.4K. After it loosened up, somewhere around 270 ohms does the trick. Like some LOMC it gets more dynamic with higher value load and more focus with lower. This seems to vary a lot with preamp and system. Manufactures could make it easier on MM/MI users by providing options. Hi out carts would be much more desirable if users could load and tune to their system. They think everybody is looking for the holy grail. Most times I just want to play a record and have it sound really nice.

If Raul prefers the hi out, I don't see a problem. We all get different results to some extent. If someone likes a TK-7_ does that make it wrong? There's really no morality involved in all this. Maybe the one who likes the Signet will try a 20SS and like that more. Maybe not.
Regards,
No. I've got a full-up L07D cum L07J tonearm that I like very much, not just the tonearm. I found that the table itself sounded much better after I installed an EMI/RFI shield under the platter mat (termed a "platter sheet" by Kenwood). I used TI Shield available from Mike Percy. I have been meaning to try it with my other dd turntables, but for sure it is a must-do for the L07D. The idea was not mine, came from reading the L07D owners website. The leader of that group uses ERS cloth. If you still have your Kenwood, you might give it a try too.
Regards, Fleib: Good post, a lot said with an economy of words. As there are some who are detail oriented, the VE cart. database does show three 981's, two HZ's and one LZ. The stylus contact area for the stereohedrons is given as 8um (minor radius) x 71um (major radius), consistent with Shibata but according to it's "inventor", a Huges Diagmatics Inc., it has two additional front facets, intended perhaps to either reduce tip mass or to avoid infringment of the Shibata patents. As a comparison, engagment for a .7mil conical or standard .3 x .7 elliptical is frequently given as 18um (major raidus), a microline at 75um. These are AT figures, they also state their Shibata as 6um (minor) x 71um (major).

Reflection on these figures and it's relation to groove modulation might give one insight into the noted hf response of the Stereohedron stylus.

"One who truly knows---can never be impoverished". Sun-tzu.

Peace,
Lewm, Lucky you. I've seen a couple of 7Ds sold here on Agon for ridiculously low price lately. ERS cloth is a great idea. You can get it with adhesive backing. Put it under a delrin mat and you'd have the ultimate interface? Built in constrained layer damping sounds appealing. Perhaps a contact points interface would be the only competition, but that's for belt drives.

I used to have a Studietto w/zeta. That was my fav. The suspension was the weak part, but I was in the biz and had all kinds of extra springs. My ex partner had a Reference. That one was fun. One thing I learned was how to goose decent performance from even a modest deck. It's a lot easier if it spins at the right speed. Some of the entry decks are like a money pit of a house. If you're on a budget, who wants to spend a grand or whatever, on a box to make it run at speed? I'm thinking of making some videos on modifying tables. But like my Sapphire/Teres rim drive project, it sits on the floor barely touched.

I have tweeters to install, an open baffle project and a full range driver idea is formulating that might really take the cake. This is a hobby for me now, if only I could squeeze a few more hours in each day.....
Regards,
Thank you Timeltel, I started investigating the differences in tips a few years back. This necessitated using MM/MI carts for obvious reasons. Although I wanted to approach from a standpoint of "no preconceived notions", it's impossible to put aside what you already know. The AT micro line is the same as a micro ridge. These are cut in the same facility in Japan. There are only a handful of places in the world that cut diamonds for tips.

The shibata was the first extended contact shape, invented for 4-ch reproduction. It sits near the bottom of the groove. Even if a record is cleaned well, it might reveal some noise when deburring parts of the groove previously unplayed. Because the facets are different on front compared to back, the contact with record spinning is curved rather than straight. I believe this is what gives the shibata the uniquely sweet high frequency sound. From a technical viewpoint it could be seen as a flaw. I suspect the delay is less than the difference in transient response between some cart designs. I admit I never tried to calculate. I think this invention is more of a stroke of artistic genius. Like it or not, it is or was unique. Some approach this as calculating the trajectory of a rocket. I try to approach as how does it sound?

Of course the side dimension is the detail extraction aspect. I tend to go for very detailed. It seems that many prefer musicality or overall coherence over detail.

AT offered a great way for me to learn the something about the art of cart design. Once you can do stylus/plug transplants, you're not limited to body style type substitutions. Choice of tip, cantilever and compliance applies to all carts, not just MMs. Another Agoner, Glrickaby, seemed to discover the Clearaudio/AT relationship, and post in on VE and Audio Circle with me.

There are other things you can do as well. I have a potted AT-95 with an aluminum top plate. It sounds pretty damn good. Right now I have an AT-7V tip on there. I keep it in the same plug and can swap with my Virtuoso. But don't think the Clearaudios are the same as a AT-95 body. They're not. They have different generators.

There's no such thing as 47K being the standard for terminating a MM/MI. It's only there by default. "They" perpetuate this mentality to sell carts for thousands of dollars. Those carts are fine if that's what you're into, but offering no options for the rest of the people is a conspiracy of indifference or greed.
Regards,
Regards, Fleib: Would you be so kind to describe the proceedure involved in mounting your AT-95 to a solid top plate? I have a spare Azden YMP-50VL & suspect it would benefit from an improved mounting application, thinking a solid block? General details would be appreciated.

Peace,
Dear Fleib, Empirically, I would recommend against the ERS cloth and in favor of the TI Shield. For one thing, ERS cloth can be kind of lumpy; the platter sheet might not sit perfectly level on it. For another, the ERS cloth would tend to decouple the platter sheet/mat from the platter and thereby abrogate the designer's intent as regards dissipation of energy from the LP. But most importantly, TI Shield just measures way better for both EMI and RFI rejection than does ERS cloth. However, I have not compared one to the other. TI Shield needs to be grounded for optimal effect. I figure that is achieved via the large contact area between TI Shield and both the platter (below) and the platter sheet (above).
Timeltel, I made it out of an old aluminum headshell, using the old slots to align with the mounting bolts. It is fixed with epoxy. A broken keyboard is forcing me to use an old one whhhhhhhhhich had coffee spilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllled on it. lol, I'll have to get back to you.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.0
Dear Thuchan: Finally I have a little time to give my answer- opinion ( btw, I need to post my answer to Halcro/Chris one and to Fleib on inductance. I need more time but I will do it. ) on your post about Common listening Aproach ( everything from here are in good shape and not against you. I respect you and you like me. Nothing personal. ) ):

++++++ " if we all would be a peer group knowing each other personally and also having had the chance to listen to each other system we might get closer to your objective parameters. I understand your approach finding comparable preconditions and to counterbalance them over the distance. Only I doubt it will work.

Regarding the EMT JPA 66, which is a pre-amp as well as a complex phono stage, I am in good neighbourhood with some Japanese and German afficinados that this is the ultimate machine. What I like is not only the sound and the variations you may play with, especially when it comes to MM cartridges. No, technologically the two output transformers (which phono stage does carry them) enable a different sound experience you may have with the EMT 139st too. Also the 6 inbuilt SUTs are of such good quality you will throw away most of the contenders...

This is first accurate and best performance......." +++++

Nandric said that both of us have no communication, I don't think so. The main difference is that both have different targets: when for you is enough that you like what you listen through your audio system for me needs not only like me but be accurate ( measure good. )-neutral-very low distortions-no colorations.
When you are looking for what you like I'm looking for excellence in quality performance level all over the audio chain. Your trade-offs are way different from mines.

As I posted: I listen ( when driven audio items tests. ) to what I missed, to what is not in " there " or what is " exceptional different ", to what disappear ( including distortions. ), etc, etc. As Doug Sax answered on that Halcro link: " and I listened not so much to its virtues as to its faults ".

I have years posting: " loosing and adding the less to preserve the source signal integrity ", this is my main target. First than all I have to preserve the source signal integrity looking for accurate and neutral audio links all over the home audio system chain.

IMHO today what measure good sounds good too, not like in the old times when those vintage Japanese electronics always measured good but sounds bad, this IMHO does not happen almost any more: normaly what we heard today in current electronics/speakers/audio items is how it measures.

How accomplish or try to accomplish my main target?, other that my knowledge/experience level on music and audio subjects I have to design a " process that help me to understand what I'm listening under audio items comparisons and that help me to identify:different kind of distortions and different distortion levels, colorations, noises and the like " , that's where my process born and came " alive " years ago and over the time was and is " suffering " changes to improve and be not only better but more trusty.

I don't care about my " Japanece/Germans neighbourhood " and only take care about when that " person " has a superior knowledge/skills level than mine, that's it: when I can learn to improve and grow-up.

For years I care not only on my " Japanese/german " audio friemds, reviewers, audio retailers and the like till I take in count that I was not growing up or at least growing up to slow. Somedays one step a head and some other days two.tree steps back and many times only side steps.
IMHO something similar of what you are living with out knowingit. My advise about is that you take alone your " road " with no " Jurassic audio gurus " surrounded where you can't grow-up and only are loosing time and money, yes with a lot of fun but loosing at the end. IMHO there is no " signs " of your audio improvements.

Your " Lost Friends " in your virtual system is nothing less than the " Frustration Friends " where sooner or latter your today tube electronics will finish.

I know that you are not looking for excellence performance level on your system and certainly with those " Jurassic Park " audio items is impossible you can achieve excellence.

I will take that EMT Phonolinepreamp that you and your " Jurassic " friends name it: " ultimate machine ". For me an " ultimate machine " must be first than all ACCURATE and NEUTRAL and your unit is far away from there. There are many reasons why your " ultimate machine " it is not an ultimate machine: full of transformers where the signal suffer severe degradation ( the best signal transformer is no tgransformer. ), full of swtichs where the signal is degraded, tube inherent inaccuracies non-neutral colored noisy and distorted technology ( it does not matters design and first rate execution. ).

Dear Thuchan, the RIAA deviation on that EMT ( 20hz to 20khz. ) has a swing of 1db!!!!!!, this IMHO is non-tolerable to any today phono stage: this sole factor made that that phono stage can't " save " and mantain the cartridge signal integrity, instead of that only degrade the cartridge signal with inaccuracies/colorations and distortions that are not on the cartridge signal!!!!, so where you and the " Jurassic Park " seen the " ultimate machine "?. I don't care that you like it because that's not the subject.

The subject is to achieve excellence quality performance level and that unit can't do it. I know that you think that with your new " toys " you go several steps a head but IMHO you only give steps backward or in the best scenario: only a side step, but I doubt this last.

That's why is so important to have a " specific process to audio system/items evaluation ". It is almost impossible to know if you really advance or go back only with that " It's wrong but I like it ", can't do it for sure.

I was really benign with your EMT RIAA deviation because if you measure that RIAA maybe that deviation is over 1db and not only that but is almost sure that the left channel RIAA be different from the right channel RIAA as maybe there are differences even in the line stage frequency range/response for both channels and even its output level for both channels could have differences too.
I know what you are hearing not only because this EMT and your Wavacs but for what you report, example that you like it the TK3e. I can understand this because youare a rockie on MM/MI cartridges but in other areas you confirm what I'm saying.

We all know that analog is an imperfect medium but we don't have to increment those imperfections on each audio link that like the phono stage and say: " I like it ".

Accuracy is the name of excellence, with out accuracy it does not matters " how good it sounds ". Don't you think that is way better that something be accurate to the signal and at the same time Sounded Good?, certainly yes.

This is an example of the excellence level I'm looking for and that I already achieve with some of my audio items ( I'm not saying I'm done but I'm trying hard to be " there ". ):

https://picasaweb.google.com/104284617601331669309/1606201109?authkey=Gv1sRgCNrBhveq5uzC-AE#slideshow/5618984106525365922

that is the RIIA deviation ( both channels. ) on the phono stage I use.

https://picasaweb.google.com/104284617601331669309/1606201107?authkey=Gv1sRgCI3hj-juiKXOGA#slideshow/5618983008834878562

those are the same RIAA measurements on two top SS Phonolinepreamps.

Remember the 60K Phono Stage only german Vitus?, well it is not better.

The RIIA accuracy on my latest unit measured: 0.012db!!!! both channels!!!!: no differences in between.

This is only of the excellence example level I'm accustom and looking for.

No, you and me ( as many other persons in this forum. ) are listening different " things " and not because we don't:
""" knowing each other personally and also having had the chance to listen to each other system we might get closer to your objective parameters. " ++++, but because your trade-offs ( for say the least and be polite. ) are way different from mines.

Excellence against " I like it ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Raul,
agree with you we need not to rely on Gurus or writers` opinion. What I am saying is: I know some people in Japan and Germany who are deep into our hobby and they have real contact with the JPA66 and made their own experiences rather than looking from the distance onto this unit.This is what I am interested in also trying to comprehend the engeneering concept as well.

That was a LOT of words to say that "my JPA66 is 'bad' ". I also agree with you we have maybe different tastes on equipment and listening enjoyment. I rather go for lively, emotional sound, no neutral or clinical clean waves or flat in terms of frequency response.

the tubes vs. solid state issue is also a kind of development I would say. You stopped looking or experimenting with gear five years ago you said. I do respect this as I understood you have reached nirvana. I am pretty sure we both will become happy "in our worlds" and the only step forward in our exchange might be a real test in font of the systems.

best & fun only - Thuchan
Dear Raul, I will not take any side here, but I just want to recommend to everybody's attention once again the ultimate statement by J.W. v. Goethe regarding individual human preferences in all aspects of personal life:

"erlaubt ist, was gefaellt, was sich ziemt" (
from: "Torquato Tasso" by J.W.v. Goethe).

The more simplified english "each his own" comes close, but doesn't capture the full content.
As such, even the experience of "absolute sound" as well as "quality" is - unfortunately ...;-( ... - always in the eye, ear and mind of the individual beholder.
In other words - everyone of us is living in his/her/its own and singular universe.
Thuchan's position is as good and valid as yours (... or mine...).
None of us has any right to judge nor criticize the other's position or taste in sound.
Each a universe none of us can share nor fully explain to the other.
The dilemma of every audiophile striving for any absolute .....
Too bad.
Best regards, enjoy the music and fun only,
D.
Dear Halcro,

finally I received my TK5Ea and the silver connectors. All put together with the new AT155LC stylus in an appropriate SAEC shell leads to a wonderful result in the FR-66s.

I have figured out, also with the TK3E and the TK7SU, if you are using the right headshell/MM cart combination the FR-66s is one of the best arms for MMs. The TK3E gets some more soundstage in the highs when using the No 3 stylus of the TK7SU. Nevertheless it provides a wonderful punch as we agree on. Many thanks again for the recommendation on these 2 carts.

I experimented a bit with MMs, also with the "new giants" and was able to get some nice sound out of these carts.
Some are providing an airy sound only, which is ok for voices or small instrumentation but not for the big orchestra and "the real music". This might be the reason why MCs are so popular.

Understanding the MM-shopping became a bit of a game for many MM-afficinados due to the reasonable prices. You can easily throw away the one you don`t like or put it back on ebay. I guess some of the MM-guys writing on the MM thread just do this, why not?

We should not forget the London Reference, a Moving Iron of benchmark quality. Maybe some of the MMs discussed here would lounge reaching it`s overall qualities.
Dear Raul,
Since it is OK for you to rather harshly dismiss Thuchan's phono stage, and indeed his entire downstream amplification chain, and since it was OK for you to categorically dismiss vacuum tubes as a way to amplify music, I hope you will take it with equal grace, as Thuchan took your remarks, when I ask the rhetorical question, what are you listening to? Answer: You are listening to sound coming out of your speakers. You are not listening to your preamp or your modified Mark Levinson amplifiers. They are just generating complex AC signals that need transducing to be heard. How on earth did you select those speakers and that subwoofer, if your goal is as pure as you say it is? I posit that you made your choices subjectively. You are trapped, just like the rest of us, with your ears and brain. There are many many other speaker systems that would likely have lower distortion and flatter response than does yours, that employ much fewer distortion- and phase anomaly-inducing crossover components than does yours. Your whole rationale for stating that you operate on a higher plane than the rest of us falls apart when I consider your speaker system. But it's OK. I respect you anyway. I am with Dertonearm on this.
Dear Thuchan: This is the second time in this page that you " receive " my personal opinion with " grace ", I really appreciated that because I don't wait nothing less from you.

I have to go now and come back when I have time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dertonarm: You know I respect you and in some ways I could agree with you on this subject. More on this latter.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Lewm: I understand perfectly your point of view. Please read about:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&3941&4#3941

I'm not saying is perfect faraway from there but extremely competitive with yours or any other person in this thread or outside it. Btw, I'm not dimished nothing but when you " see " things with a little of objectivity things are different on what you supposed.

I have to go to take my flight on time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
My favorite Goethe (in youth) was "The Sorrows of Young Werther." This was a double-edged critique of a poet/philosopher's romantic self-absorption. Goethe later recanted the book in light of a large readership of educated German youth failing to detect his irony, with a few even fulfilling the plot line of a romantic suicide pact. As German philosophers are popular around here, a note of caution lest the romanticism of the MM phenomenon consume us all.
Dear Dgarretson, The French enlightment caused very different influences in Europe. The 'essence' was about the 'eloquence' but with different understanding in different countrys of what this means. In some countrys like Russia it meant 'well -read' or literature in other the science. So the dream of each Russian intellectual is
to become a second Tojstoj or Dostojevski. In Germany it
was literature + philosophy. So both , the writers as well
as phylosopher, are in high esteem in Germany. No wonder then that Dertonarm whom I regard as one of the most eloquent person I have ever meet is refering to Goethe.
Alas as Frege explained the literature is an art and not
a science. Ie the so called truth values are not involved
in the literature. Ie you are free to write a fantastic poem about the beauty of the Pegasus wings without any worry about the existance of this imagined animal. In science however it make no sence to attribute whatever propertys to a non existent entity. That is btw why we spend so much money for this colider in Switserland . If this higs particle does not exist the whole theory will colapse. Exactly what Frege meant with his 'About Sense and
Reference'. So to my mind this reference to Geothe is not
convincing at all.
Regards,
Dave, I think the latest fracas is about how one selects one's components downstream from the phono cartridge, be it MM or MC or ceramic, even. As you know, I keep some good MC cartridges around as a reference. But even so, I am far from drawing any global comparisons between the two archetypes, because I have not heard many/most of the "very best" (i.e., most expensive) MCs and may not ever be able to do so in my own home system. Another thing is that we tend to lump MM and MI cartridges together. I think they may sound distinctly different but more like each other than like a good MC.
Dear Lewm,
MI cartridges are a group of its own, good that you name it. It is a completley different design. But in the end we have three groups and if someone would ask me "what are your Stereo-Favourits of each group" I would mention: Lyra Olympos, AT TK7SU, London Reference. Of course there are many other excellent contenders.

best & fun only - Thuchan
I must must hear an Olympos. It is such a revered cartridge, and by people who have everything and have heard everything.
Hello Timeltel, Sorry about that post last night. The 2nd set of pictures at the AC link I provided, above, shows the 95 with mods. I didn't want to add a lot of mass, that's why I used a cut down aluminum headshell. The epoxy holds it rigidly in place. This is the same 5 minute gooey type epoxy I used to pot the cart. Near the back-top of the cart is a screw that holds the plastic top to the body. I removed the screw and gently pushed the epoxy into the body. The plastic top was damped with rope caulk and glued on to the body. I pre-cut the headshell and glued that on to the top. Others have reported that potting the inside of the cart makes a significant difference. I figured that reducing or elimination internal vibrations could only help. It does seem to make a nice improvement on the 95. It seems quieter and more like a master tape sound. The other report I read was on an AT-14. The 95 is inexpensive so I didn't mind risking it for the experiment. The danger is with the delicate wires going to the output pins. I'm thinking about doing this to some of my others, but haven't yet done so.

Running near the front of the AC vinyl section is the thread on phase shift. Although it is lengthy, I think you might find it interesting.
Regards,
Hello Lewm, I really have no experience using a RF/EMI shield on a platter. I never had a problem in that regard, but I would imagine it could be something that you might not realize it needs fixing until you hear it w/o interference. Is that the case?
My thoughts were more about platter design and energy dissipation. I very much belong to the Pierre Lurne school of energy dissipation. There are about 1/2 dozen interviews with him on the net. One platter is a sandwich of 9mm of lead between slices of delrin. This is designed to reflect back at different times and break up reinforced reflections back to the record. Regardless of original intent of Kenwood designers, some things can be improved.
Regards,
Regards, Fleib: I did follow up on the provided link, nice discussion you guys had going there. Thanks.

Peace,
Dear Fleib, I did not know that Mr. Lurne' founded a school. I do know that I heard one of his early turntable efforts that had a spring suspension, and I thought it was a very bad sounding, over-priced product. Possibly his later efforts have been better; it would have been easy to improve the one I heard by tossing out the springs. The thing was visibly bouncing whilst trying to play music. (The suspension seemed completely undamped.) But this is all OT. Yes, the platter (and platter mat) is a very important and often neglected determinant of turntable sound, IMO. There are as many opinions on how to make the perfect platter (and platter mat) as there are audiophiles. The negative opinions that some have regarding the vintage Japanese dd turntables may have as much to do with their typical heavy, dull-sounding rubber mats as anything else. First thing to do with a Technics or a Denon is ditch the mat (but keep it hidden away, for originality). And yes, the shield is something that you don't miss until you install one and hear the difference. I would not run my L07D without it. However, I think the shield is likely to be specific for dd turntables and maybe only for Kenwoods at that. Some guys were going to try it with Technics tables, but I never read a report on the results. (The better Kenwoods have a coil-less motor that is mounted right up high just under the platter, so my completely unproven theory is that the motor may radiate EMI upward and affect the cartridge.)
Dear friends: Good opportunities :

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nagatron-9600-Cartridge-Mounted-Black-Headshell-Used-/320715163104?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aac1d05e0#ht_1144wt_934

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nagatron-9600-Cartridge-Mounted-Headshell-Used-/320715139632?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aac1caa30#ht_1144wt_934

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Vintage-EMPIRE-EDR9-Stereo-Turntable-Cartridge-/280696091204?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item415aca7244#ht_500wt_950

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dertonarm, I need to make some 'a posteriori' comment
on your Goethe quote. As a lawyer I know that nobody, except some specific lawyer, read Criminal law. There are two reasons why: 1. the language used is very boring because of the repetition of the same kind of hypothetical statements.
a. If you commit 'a' you get 4 years;
b. If you commit 'b' you get 10 years'
c. If you commit 'c' (of the capital crime)you get death
penalty ( in some countrys) , etc. etc,.

2. The second reason is simple because people don't like to
know in advance but prefer to quess. If they are allowed
to quess they will always quess in their own interest.
So no wonder that every defence start with: "I had no idea that 'a' was not allowed'' or ''I had no idea what 'a' exactly means'',etc.
This defence is based on the strange assumption that 'ignorance' is somehow identical with 'innocence'.

Now back to Goethe:

'it is allowed what you fancy, what is accomodating'

This is my transaltion. Well it may be the case that such
longing is allowed by Goethe but there are many articles in the Criminal Law which don't allow us to do what we would like to do.

Regards,

Dear Lewm, Your comments say more about the design flaws of the LO-7D than about Lurne. I must plead ignorance concerning your Kenwood, just as you are ignorant concerning Audio Mecca, Goldmund direct drive and Lurne.
Regards,
Hi Folks

Halcro in your postings about the AT7V and the ATN155LC you asked about the reason for the differences between styli and the concomittant need for loading adjustments....

I've been thinking of writing a lot of this down.... an article for somewhere perhaps.

But taking a shot at it here and on the fly!

First the needles ability to follow the groove varies by shape and particularly by side radius... this will change the distortion levels (and some of that distortion may contribute to "enhancements" at certain frequencies)... but will not for the most part affect the fundamental "sound" of the stylus (in other words it affects fine details but not overall tone).

The cantilever is very much more critical:
1) it is the prime contributor to effective mass - and the lower the total effective mass, the better both tracking and high frequency becomes - this is however another "detail" aspect.

2) Mechanical Resonance and Damping thereof - this is the core and hub of the matter - the tone/sound of a stylus is fundamentally driven by this!
The frequency response of the stylus will be altered by the resonance, and by the damping (and suspension - which is part of the damping) used.
The Ortofon Ortophase article has graphs showing 4 different cantilever setups on an Ortofon MC200 cartridge - minimula/no damping through to heavily damped.
This affects the amplitude frequency response as well as the phase frequency response substantially.
Many of the cartridges regarded as "the best" have their resonances placed well outside the audio range (EPC100 well over 50kHz, Shure V15V 33kHz to 35k Hz)

Placing the resonance that high ensures that the stylus and cantilever can respond in a (relatively) pure linear way within the audio band... and a close to linear way well above the audio band.

Coming back to earth, and considering some styli I have measured....

The AT440MLa has a nice stylus and cantilever, but the mechanical resonance is spread from about 13kHz to 17kHz - the wide spread and "double peak" pattern of that resonance appears to indicate quite heavy use of damping... (internal to cantilever? - different materials in the suspension? not sure...) - Keep in mind that damping also does terrible things to phase linearity.... and these are difficult to measure or pin down subjectively...

So the ATN440MLa stylus has a tone which is driven by the raised area across the high frequencies - and the fact that this raised area is spread across a relatively wide frequency range.

Moving to the ATN15/20SS - with the beryllium cantilever...
The mechanical resonance is just barely outside the audible area (21k to 23k) but the rise to that peak has an influence down to around 15kHz.
because the peak is outside the audio area, it doesn't need to be damped so heavily - so the peak it much higher than the ATN440MLa peak, but its influence at 20kHz is only a touch more than the height of the ATN440MLa's peak - and by the time you get down to 16kHz the influence is negligible, where the ATN440MLa is at it's maximum influence around that frequency area.

The ATN15/20ss therefore sounds much more inherently neutral as a result (its midrange is well outside the influence of the resonance - where the ATN440Mla resonance influence extends down to 8kHz or perhaps even 5kHz)

3) Loading:
given a rise at the extreme high end, on the ATN20ss stylus - Neutral results require a load that drops off in an inverse relationship to the rise, resulting in a relatively flat frequency response. - This drop off needs to start quite late - so low capacitance and inductance is important, and avoiding high R loads as these may raise the high end exacerbating the already raised fundamental cantilever performance.

By contrast the ATN440MLa needs to have a rolloff that starts earlier as its own peak starts earlier - so different capacitance - and a lower R loading to keep from adding a rise in those frequencies...

You can see that these two cantilevers will have very different "sounds" - their fundamental frequency response is very different - and therefore the right loading to provide a flat F/R is different - the loading must match the stylus - not the cartridge! (the cartridge is of course a factor)

Now the cartridge - in the past I have said the cartridge has the least impact - which I still hold to, but they are interesting beasts too...
Cartridge electrical frequency response is NOT linear
A cartridge is a coil/magnet system much like a transformer, and suffers from increasing inefficiency as frequency rises.
The quality of the materials and construction will affect the level of inefficiency - as will voltage levels & frequencies involved.

What I am observing is that when looking closely at cartridge frequency response, all cartridges have a response peak in the lower mid/high bass region (between 150Hz and 300Hz) and then response shows a consistent downwards slope thereafter.
The angle of that downwards slope is most likely related to the effectiveness/efficiency of the construction.
This means that all magnetic cartridges tend to have a slight bass "hump" (the "warmth" of vinyl) and then a midrange slump.
Many cartridges then use a combination of electrical and mechanical resonance to "fill out" that drop.
(there is also a much more dramatic drop when the LCR response shoulder is reached...)
The better the quality of construction/design, the lower the slope angle - and the less need there is to use resonances to fill things out. (and therefore top end cartridges tend to push the resonances further out... because they can!)
You can easily plot the Inductance, Capacitance, Resistance frequency response of a cartridge, and then you can experiment with differing values of C & R which will show how the response can be tailored- high end can be raised or lowered, a peak can be induced, and the shoulder after which performance drops rapidly can be shifted back or forwards in frequency.

When you change styli - the cantilever F/R is different, and to balance it out, you then need to adjust the capacitance and resistance, to change the cartridge curve to properly match the cantilever curve and provide a "flat" frequency response..... so it is definitely stylus driven - not cartridge.
Using a different model form the same manufacturer, or using a stylus from an after market manufacturer - regardless of its quality - will require a change to the loading.

Another example - a Shure M97xE will tend to sound best at 62k with its original stylus, but tends to sound best at 47k with the SAS N97xE stylus...

Other cartridge related thoughts:
A cartridge is a self biasing environment - applying a voltage to the cartridge changes its frequency response (marginally but still changes!).
There are some discussions on VE about the possibility of phono stages providing some biasing voltage...
But the important thing to consider is that the signal produced - the music itself - is in fact a bias current, affecting the frequency response.

Keeping in mind that I am not a physicist or Electrical engineer.... but I believe that this biasing influence is non linear with voltage - that is to say, at lower voltages and inductances the influence of the sound may be proportionally reduced.
The advantage of LO systems may in fact be the improved linearity due to reduced self biasing influence.
This may also be one of the reasons why many of the higher quality styli have a lower output (along with having lighter magnets to reduce effective mass...).
Lower inductances tend to push electrical resonances further up the frequency range (good!) - but may also be shifting to a range where self biasing is also reduced....

In any case - coming back to the point... yes - loading follows stylus...
Switching AT cartridge bodies allows experiments with differing inductances and the same styli... the overall "sound" follows the stylus.
Differences tend to be driven first by the stylus - then beyond that there are the differences driven by the various types of non-linearities and the effectiveness of the designs in coping with them - areas where some people may not even hear a difference.

bye for now

David
Timeltel,
you talked about analysing Square Waves in evaluating phono stages...

What tools did you use for the analysis?

Have you looked at similar analysis for cartridges?

This is one of the ways of looking at both impulse response and phase response... but it requires the right test track, and the right analytic software...

I do have at least one record with a square wave track - but need to find a way to analyse it!

thanks

David
Hi Raul,

noted your comments about RIAA accuracy...

This brings to mind the question of what is the RIAA encoding accuracy of the standard lathes used for cutting the masters?

Not that there is justification for varying from the standard... and doing so involves every increasing risks (in terms of reproducing the recording).

But I do wonder, what are the RIAA margins of error in the mastering process, and therefore what is a reasonable margin of error to aim for in reproduction?

No point sweating over 0.0005% if the mastering error is within 2%... But if mastering error is within 0.001% then ideally you would want reproduction within the same order of magnitude or better!

bye for now

David
Dlaloum,

Real food for thought. I'll be keeping abreast of associated developments.

Gratefully
Regards, Dlaloum: Thanks, David, for your research into the relationship of cantilever resonance, damping, and the relationship to loading. Your easy to read style makes this understandable and takes away much of the mysticism many associate with cartridge design.

The Tom(linson) Holman paper before the AES can be found (PDF) here:

http://www.davidreaton.com/PDFs/Holman_AES_paper.pdf

Additional research is to be found in back issues of the Boston Audio Society. Thanks again.

Peace,
Thanks for that link Timeltel...

An excellent article - and valuable as much for its inherent content as for its references...

I need to try to track down Hallgren's "RLT" parameter - I have been kludging this in my model, but if that reference leads me to something a bit more scientific than my approach that would be great!

Right now I measure the loss slope with excel apply it back as an adjustment factor to the cartridge model - once done for a cartridge, it improves the accuracy of the model across all the possible loadings for that cartridge markedly. (makes it much easier to decide on an optimal loading - and to reduce the number of options that get listened to)

Some of the stuff in there is a bit too technical for me (like I said - I'm not an EE!) - but I get the impression that in the discussion of cartridge/phono stage interaction, there is also the possibility of certain loads (too high? too low?) causing additional distortion and non-linearity...

This is a factor I have never considered!
Is this common? - Quite a few of you are designing and building your own phono stages - is this a concern, and should this be considered when choosing the load for a cartridge? - Or is this in fact something which post this article and ongoing developments became merely a footnote in history, not a concern for phono stages post 1980 (?).

In any case an excellent article covering a lot of the limitations and inter-related variables of cartridges... good stuff!

bye for now

David
Hi David, Square wave response was shown to me by an electronics designer. The output of the device was plugged into a scope and analyzed. In the case of an amplifier a signal generator can be used as the input. In the old days square wave response was sometimes published for carts. The pictures were like those on a scope. Perhaps there are oscilloscope programs for PC?

Again, I would quibble about high frequency resonance figures but it would be prudent to wait till controls are in place. I realize your comparison was "off the top" but I believe the compliance is much lower on the 7V and every aspect of stylus and cantilever is apples to oranges to the 155LC. I also wonder about damping and the 440. I believe it might be something other than damping. The 440 sounds "right" with a beryllium cantilever and a ML tip with "standard" loading. Compliance is even higher with a 152ML, but damping goes with the stylus. It's interesting to speculate.
Regards,
Dear Fleib, You are quite correct, I am ignorant of the 3 turntables you mentioned, but I only commented on one model of one of those 3 brands that I listened to at least 15-20 years ago. I listened long enough and often enough to that one particular Lurne' turntable to form an opinion. If you noticed, I tried to allow for the probable fact that his products have favorably evolved since then. The earliest efforts of any designer are often best forgotten. Sorry if I offended you.

Having owned two belt-drive turntables with relatively undamped spring suspensions (Thorens TD-125 and early SOTA Star Sapphire III), I feel I can fairly say that they are not to my taste.
Dear Lewm, No offense taken. I think it's unfair to Lurne. A Goldmund direct drive was my all time favorite table. I wish I still had it. It left my LP-12 in the dust. Now I have a Sapphire sitting on the floor disassembled. It awaits my redesign with a Teres rim drive motor. I can't listen to most heavy plattered belt drive tables. Whatever floats your boat and belt drive tends to sink.
Regards,
Dialoum, while I appreciate your research and descriptions, you make one assumption that I wonder about -

"The mechanical resonance is just barely outside the audible area (21k to 23k) "

I realize the 20K audible area is a long-standing assumption, but there has been quite a bit of research in the past few decades that challenges the perspective of high frequency perception. James Boyk was a professor at Cal Tech, audio reviewer, and a concert pianist. He has written articles on research that identifies perception of musical tones well above 20K.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

This is offered not to diminish your findings but to suggest a revised consideration for cause and effect.
Dear Nandric, ...;-) ... "it is allowed what you fancy, what is accommodating" ...a good translation, if however Goethe's "was sich geziemt" includes not just what is accommodating, but what is legal, commonly accepted and ethically approved as well.
So the smart spirit of the 18th century took the safe road home in this phrase.
It goes in a different direction compared to Friedrich's "Ein Jeder werde selig nach seiner Facon".
Cheers,
D.
Dear Fleib,
I don't know whether the word "fair" applies. I just gave my opinion and qualified it so as not to include his more recent designs. For example, it would not be unfair for you to say I am balding. I tried to be fair, in fact, in the sense that I concede that what I heard so long ago may be totally irrelevant to Lurne's present work. Now, how are you going to mate the Teres rim drive to the Sota? Won't the Sota chassis get in the way? I once thought of using the Teres with my Nottingham Hyperspace, because that one has no interfering platform or apron that would impede contact between Teres and platter.
Lew, here's a thought. An audio buddy bought a Teres rim-drive motor and controller to try with his Scout. It produced a wonderful (fill in audio adjectives here) improvement over the stock belt drive. That experience encouraged him to try DD so he then progressed though a Kenwood 650, then a Luxman 4xx, each time hearing small but worthwhile improvements.

Most recently he found a belt drive Micro Seiki table (exterior motor, not sure of model #) but was having problems with accurate speed. On an inspiration he set up the Teres in place of the MS motor, using some specialized cord drive rather than direct rim contact. With the Teres motor/controller he was able to achieve correct speed, and what he believes to be the best vinyl playback he ever experienced. For the curious this set up includes a new Ortofon arm, Oyaide headshell, and Dynavector XX-2.
Hi Fleib,

with regards to damping, the type of damping I am talking about is within the stylus mount - direct cantilever damping, as opposed to cartridge body damping...

Which means that when you exchange styli on you AT440MLa to a beryllium ML tip (155LC? 152?) you are changing the cantilever damping as well... - and of course the compliance is another cantilever suspension parameter - so placing an AT-7V stylus on an AT440MLa would obviouly give the AT440MLa the compliance of the AT-7V.

With regards to square waves, I was hoping to find some software suggestions that would analyse the square wave by FFT, breaking it down into its component parts to allow identification of its component parts...
ie: rather than looking at the square wave on an oscilloscope (I have software oscilloscopes), come back with data on that square wave in terms of phase/frequency, rise time/slew rate and distortion...

Hi Pryso,

thank you for that link - an interesting article- particularly the part about the saccule.
It is clear that the presence of ultrasonic sound can be perceived.

What is not clear and is hotly debated is to what degree the perception of that ultrasonic sound is direct perception of the utrasonics themselves, or indirect perception of the intermodulation artifacts of the ultrasonics which are in turn within the audible range.

Several other problems exist too - Ultrasonics are incredibly "beamy" the beam from an ultrasonic tweeter is incredibly narrow - and the appropriate "sweet spot" is therefore very narrow too. Reproduction and effective use in a stereo (if warranted which is by no means certain!) - is problematic. (although there have been experiments in it)

The commonly accepted approach to ultrasonics (which various research groups are researching... and may in due course change) is that 1) there is definitely ultrasonic components to many many instruments, 2) These are (primarily?) perceived through the intermodulation of these frequencies with other frequencies present at the time of recording, producing IM that is within the audible range, 3) Reproducing the original ultrasonics in a stereo system is doubly problematic as it invites a secondary IM of the recorded ultrasonics with the reproduced music - the resulting IM being another form of distortion.

Further problems exist! - An analysis of many different forms of amplifiers, recorders, and other electronic equipment used in the audio chain, will frequently show ultrasonic distortion or simply RF pickup of various forms - even when nothing is being played back.
The recording/playback chain is not usually designed to cater to ultrasound, and therefore this range is not kept "clean" and "noise free" - hence there is frequent use of HF filtering to clean up the "grunge" - which otherwise can affect the primary audio signal through IM (within the electronics).

Personally I know that with my own recordings, an analysis of the frequencies above 20kHz always shows the system picking up various signals that are clearly not related the recording (I can unplug the input and they are still there!) - their levels are lowish (below -60db) but would be considered unacceptable within the audio range.
The signals vary by time of day, and perhaps other conditions ie: it is not clear whether they are products of radio interference or carried by the powerline (even though I run power fitering)
I get better results in an audible sense, by filtering above 20kHz - which I do in the digital domain, after recording.... but I believe another level of improvement is possible by moving the filtering to prior to the ADC, and therefore taking a part of the spectrum away from the ADC to facilitate more accurate reproduction of the audio spectrum, (this would need to be done keeping in mind phase issues - so a gentle slope analogue filter?)

An interesting topic.... LP's can certainly have signals well beyond 20kHz, and a well pressed LP can have reasonable level material through to 50kHz without a problem.
But whether the material above 20kHz SHOULD be reproduced is quite a different question - and the reproductive tools we have available - the entire chain in point of fact- is designed only for and around the audio range.
Although some components have extended frequency response, this is usually claimed and published as a means of demonstrating that the more limited audio range is therefore clean and linear as the device can perform well outside that range.
We have not even discussed the limitations in the vast majority of microphones...

bye for now

David