Telarc 1812 revisited

Bifwynne: There are three different versions of the Telarc 1812 that I am aware of, and they are cut differently. The original version was cut by Stan Ricker and has "SR" engraved in the deadwax (groove leadout area). The second version, cut by Bruce Leek, can be identified by a "BL" engraved in the deadwax. It is less hot than the "SR" version. Bruce Leek cut one more version, which doesn't have any initials engraved in the deadwax. This the hottest of all (grin).

In contrast, the hottest any abnormal LP will max out at is about 100µm. By "abnormal", I mean a really extreme 12-inch dance single, probably 45rpm.

According to Stan, the "SR" version of the Telarc 1812 has a maximum groove level of 455µm - 4.5 times the level of any other "extreme" LP. I don't know how much hotter the unsigned version is.

I am surprised that Raul managed to get the Akiva (which I designed) to play cleanly through whichever pressing of the Telarc 1812 cannons that he has. Since I know how far the Telarc 1812 is outside of any normal (or even extreme) LP, it has never been my goal to track it.

The "New Angle" generation of Lyras - Delos, Kleos, Atlas, and now Etna, have a more linear suspension system than the two-generations-older Akiva - and with more equal compliance in the horizontal and vertical directions. That said, for a Kleos, I would consider 60µm tracking ability to be barely passable, 70µm normal, 80µm better than normal, anything higher would be unusually good.

Keep in mind that, in addition to all of the normal setup requirements like perfect leveling, optimum anti-skating, ambient temperature, relative humidity etc., the tonearm effective mass will alter the tracking ability, so expect that you will need to put in some trial-and-error work on your tonearm before achieving the maximum tracking ability that your Kleos is capable of.

The tracking limits of a cartridge also depend on age - it increases as the suspension limbers up through usage, but as the stylus wears, it starts to fall again. And if anything happens to the impair the flexibility of the suspension (the reason could be as simple as excess dirt build-up in the cantilever and coil area), tracking will be worse.

hth, jonathan carr

JCarr....you mention the proper application of Anti-Skate in your 10/11 post....Do you say that to increase the tracking ability, or to provide the maximum audio ability of the cartridge? I personally find that a/s acts much as a damping factor does, and actually inhibits the ultimate sound ability of the cart..

Stringreen: To increase the tracking ability on difficult passages. Since skating forces are dependent on tonearm geometry (they are not constant across the LP) as well as instantaneous groove modulation (the heavier the groove modulation, the bigger the skating force), unless you use an electronic servo-controlled tonearm, there will be no single, optimal setting.

And since normally there is no single, optimal setting, you will need to find the "best" setting empirically.

I agree that for normal listening rather than circus stunts, to error on the side of less anti-skating rather than more, usually gives better sound.

hth, jonathan carr

Dear friends: Some way or the other I think all ( but Stringreen, please read here: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1381113244&openflup&3&4#3) are " right " and of course that I can be wrong.

I think that here could be a misunderstood because we are discussing two related subjects that are different with different meaning: cartridge tracking abilities and cartridge/tonearm resonance. Let me explain and try to give some answers on what you all posted:

there is no doubt on the cartridge/tonearm resonance match ( 10 hz. ) importance but as many subjects in audio on playback many theories can't be proved ( at least today there is no scientifict test that do it. ) and example of that is that the LOMC Ortofon MC 2000 ( that I own two samples. ) was reviewed by expert B.King in the Audio magazine in 1984 and this cartridge mounted in a Technics EPA 250 ( SP 10 TT ) had a measured resonance frequency of 5 hz ( way out of the desired 10 hz. ) and the cartridge track perfectly the Telarc 1812.
This experience is exactly mine with the MC 2000 ( from those times cam the Denon DL 1000A, Highphonic MC A6, FR MCX-5. I own all of them and all are tracking champs as the old Satin MP21 or today Denon DS1 or the Wilson Benesch that is builded by Benz Micro: yes Tony you are right about Benz Micro. ) ) in several tonearms. I post this because is not my bla-bla-bla- experience but something with scientific measurements.

That kind of experience repeated not one but many times with other cartridges, I remember ( posted in the MM/MI thread and other threads. ) what happened with two of the Astatic cartridges: it runs and track the 1812 even that the resonace frequency was 3.6 hz!!!!!!

I own tonearms with an effective mass ranging from 6 grs to over 35 grs. and I use removable headshells ranging from 4.5 grs to 22 grs.
I made every kind of test any one of you could imagine on the cartridge tracking abilities subject.

My Stanton 981 ( in theory a tracking champ. ) can't track three of the 16 cannon shots, things are that I own too a Pickering ( similar cartridge. ) XV 5000 that use the same stylus assembly well I put the XV 5000 stylus in the Stanton 981 cartridge body with out any other change and this stylus assembly tracks all cannon shots ( both stylus in pristine/mint condition but fully broken. ). I tested this cartridge on different tonearms with different effective mass and the result always the same: tracks with no trouble when the own 981 can't do it, in the other side the quality performance during normal LP playback is ssuperior with the 5000 stylus that with the 981.

When I want to change the tonearm effective mass I don't like to use blue-tack because other than the increment on TEM it works as a damper too and this sole characteristic change the sounds colorations. What I use is similar heaviest headshell ( I own no less than 70+ different headshells. Audio Technica and Technics are some headshells that permit to change the TEM with out add any other change or damp. ). We can't have a conclusion when we changed more than one parameter at the time.

J.Carr, you posted about the 70's-80's old times about the type of cartridges and tonearms and I differ with you because I own several those times tonearms that have high effective mass as the SAEC, FR, Micro Seiki and the like. IMHO were not the Japanese whom made that low mass tonearms growing up but USA and Europe designers: Black Widow, SME and others.

In those all times MM/MI cartridges were exceptional cartridge trackers where LOMC were poorer ones ( but with exceptions. ) and IMHO were the LOMC manufacturers and reviewers ( owners of LOMC cartridges. ) the ones that forbidden the Telarc 1812 telling us: " Hey! does not matters that your cartridge can't track the infamous 1812 LP what's important is that can track a " normal " LP ", this is the way I learned but today through several ( hundreds maybe thousands of tests. ) first hand experiences I know all of them were plain wrong because tracking cartridge abilities is way critical for a top quality performance level.

J.Carr I posted: everything the same the cartridge with better tracking abilities always will sounds better.

Other example of what I'm posting happened with the Audio Technica Precept line ( 440 ), things are that this cartridge came in three different versions: with elliptical, Shibata and line contact stylus.
All of them shares the same construction and specs on compliance, well no one but the line contact version can track the 1812 and obviously is the one that performs ( in normal LPs. ) at higher quality level even better than the 550 ML version.

I own several cartridges ( MM/MI/LOMC/HOMC ) and in many models two or three samples of the same cartridge. One of my latest experiences about was/is with the today top of the line Audio Tecnica ( MM ) AT 150ANV, if we check against other AT ( vintage ones ) cartridges the compliance spec is almost the same but when the AT 20SS can track the 1812 with out trouble the 150ANV just can't but because its design the sound has better quality.

Something that makes me think are my Lyra ( Clavis DC, Helikon and Titan i. , Audioquest ( Fe5 ) and Akiva latest ( Linn. ) experiences:

all these cartridges were builded by Scan-tech and no one but the Akiva can track the 1812 and not only that: the AKIVA is the only one of any other cartridge I tested that track the last cannon shot ( at the very inner LP grooves. ) in precise and clean way and I mean it. All the other cartridges that normally track the 1812 can track this last cannon shot but not at the Akiva level.

It was after my Akiva experience that I really know for the very first time the Glorious of that last cannon shot.

The best of all with the AKIVA is that its quality performance level surpass all the Lyra named as the Audioquest too and several totay top LOMC I experienced in my system.

In my whole evaluation proccess I use sevarl other LP tracks but on the tracking subject I use too the RR Dafos and a Shefield LP : Michael Ruff side 4 ( I will be there ), things happen that this track is a long version and higher recorded velocity that the side 1 version .
Well, I don't know if my LP sample had a pressed fault but there are at least three ( high frequencies as cymbals. ) passages that can be tracked only for the trackers champs: only the cartridges that can track " cleanly " the 1812 are succesful with this Shefield track.

Now and if we forget about cartridge tracking abilities the resonance frequency value differences even with the same cartridge ( different tonearms. ) always makes and put a different overall coloration in the cartridge quality performance.
This is: if a cartridge/tonearm combination resonates at 10 hz that same cartridge in the same tonearm ( added effective mass ) that could resonate at 8 hz or 11 hz has a diferent sound response colorations. So the importance of the cartridge/toneam matching is very important as I said.

I think that if any one ( today ) is dimished the critical importance of self cartridge abilities ( as I said ) is a misunderstood .

Any one of you can make the tests I already did it and if not own those cartridges then ask me about.
Till you experienced the tracking abilities subject you just can't understand what I posted.

Btw, all my tests are repeatable and I want to state and repeat:

it does not matters the tonearm effective mass when a cartridge has the right tracking abilities always performs in that way and when a cartridge has not " good " tracking abilities it does not matters that the tonearm combination resonate at 10 hz the cartridge stay with its self not so good tracking abilities and will performs in that way.

No one believe it?, easy come to my place: be my guest.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Hi Raul,
Those cartridges' tracking abilities would be severely limited if the Cartridge/Tonearm system frequency were approaching 15Hz. Big difference going the other way because all of the musical energy on the record is higher than 10Hz. A system that is down to 5Hz or 3Hz is going to have warp or footfall issues however, correct?