Cartridge upgrade for SME 20/2A???


Okay, it's almost time for a cartridge upgrade for my SME 20/2A (with SME 4.5 arm). Currently I am using a Dynavector 17d mkII and though it sounds pretty good, I'm also pretty sure that the cartridge - along with the phono interconnect - is a limiting factor. Any thoughts that you guys/girls might have would be most appreciated, including information as to the compatability of the SME arm with certain types of cartridges. I'm not even sure of budget yet, though I realize I will have to spend at least double the amount of the 17d mkII to get a real improvement.
esoxhntr
Well, the winner is a Dynavector XV-1. I got a chance to hear almst all of the mentioned cartridges (never could track down a ZYX), and though all were very, VERY good, in the end I preferred the tonal balance of Dynavectors. The ultimate nail in the coffin was Raul (many thanks for that Raul) pointing me in the direction of a killer deal on an XV-1. I spent a couple of hours setting the thing up last night, and while I am sure it's not perfect, it is close, and is a marked improvement over the 17DmkII. I did in fact get eveything I wanted - slightly firmer bass, better resolution, and a bit more output. Also, things are a little smoother up top.

In all fairness, I have gained a new appreciation for the abilities of the 17DmkII, it really does an outstanding job for it's price. But I certainly don't regret selling it to upgrade ;-)
I have a Dyna karat 17 D2 MK II, and is a good cartrigde, but the top Dyna XV-1S is the real match for a sme 20/2 be sure.
Shade of pale, (cool I.D. by the by :)

Yes, probably the XV-1S is a better cartridge, but I got a really good deal on an XV-1, and was not prepared to spend about double for a new XV-1S. And make no mistake, the XV-1 is a very competent pickup, and I am thrilled with it. And, considering the deal, and the savings I can now start to think about a record cleaning machine. Which leads me to...

Cipherjuris,

I would certainly like to fire off a number of questions about the Loricraft in the not too distant future, if that is okay by you. I would also be more than pleased to hear from any other record cleaner owner/operators. The more advice the better!
Esoxhntr,

Shoot me an email whenever you want to discuss the Loricraft. As difficult as it was for me to part with $2,000 for a record cleaner, I know believe it is indispensable for a music lover seriously into vinyl.

BTW, parting with that much cash for record cleaner is the only difficult thing about owning and using the Loricraft. It is easy to set up and very easy to use -- and QUIET!

Best,

Ed
The advantages of the Loricraft (and Keith Monks) are primarily related to the vacuum/vinyl interface.

With VPI, KAB, Nitty Gritty, Record Doctor, ClearAudio and similar RCM's, a vacuum wand with a "felt"-covered slot straddles the rotating LP. This has multiple disadvantages:

1. The felts get contaminated very quickly by soaking up grungy cleaning fluid. They require constant attention and frequent changing. Failure to monitor this means you're spreading scummy fluid residue around the next side you vacuum.

2. A flat, full-width slot cannot make good contact with low spots on a warped LP. Nor can it make good contact on the lead-in grooves of LP's with raised lips, the dirtiest part on most used records. Nor can it make good contact near a raised label.

3. To achieve effective air velocity across the full width of a 4" long slot requires a very powerful (and LOUD) motor. Even with this, multiple revolutions are required to get the record completely dry.

4. Unfortunately, friction from multiple revolutions causes a static buildup in the vinyl, which makes it attract the dirt you were trying to remove. To avoid this, many users advise vacuuming the record until it's "almost" dry. Unfortunately, this amounts to advising that you leave some amount of scummy residue on the LP.

In summary, RCM's with felt-lipped vacuum wands suffer from multiple operating deficiencies that are inherent in that design. The negative effects of these can be controlled with good operator techniques, but they cannot be eliminated.

***
By contrast, the vacuum on a Loricraft/KM is supplied via a hole that is < 1mm in diameter. The surface area of this hole is probably < 1% of the surface area of the slots on conventional RCM's. Achieving high air velocities through such a tiny hole requires a far less powerful motor. Vastly more effective vacuuming, yet quieter operation.

Further, the smaller motor generates less heat. A Loricraft will happily run 24 x 7 without overheating. Many VPI 16.5 owners can't clean more than 5 or 6 LP's in a session before the machine shuts down. I once cleaned 35 LP's in a single session on my PRC-3. I wore myself out but the machine just hummed along.

The vacuum head on a Loricraft/KM is mounted on a moveable "tonearm", which freely rises and falls over warps, lead-in ramps and other irregularities. As the arm motor drives the head across the rapidly spinning record, every inch of the surface receives the same (powerful) vacuuming.

The vacuum head/vinyl interface is metered not by grunge-grabbing felts, but by a nylon thread. Contrary to oft-expressed opinions, that thread does not "clean" the grooves. (Sewing thread is far too large to fit inside an LP groove.) The thead's only function is to maintain a constant, minimal but safe gap between vinyl surface and vacuum head.

The thread is advanced after each vacuuming sweep (with a quick twist of the spool on a Loricraft, automatically on a KM). Dirty, contaminated thread goes into the waste bottle and never touches your vinyl. A spool of thread lasts for thousands of vacuum sweeps, and replacements cost next to nothing.

With such a small point of contact and friction, static build up is virtually non-existent. Every side is vacuumed completely dry, with no undesirable side effects.

In summary, it's a better design. It's robustly built to work and last forever. As others have found, once you've used one it's very hard to imagine going back. Expensive, but worth every penny.

Regards,
Doug