Telarc 1812 revisited

Raul, you made 15 of the last 20 posts. Are things a little slow down there? ;-)

Dear Dougdeacon: Well, could be that audiophiles does not cares yet on the critical importance of cartridge tracking abilities to achieve top quality performance levels, improved levels on what they are already experienced.

Cartridge tracking abilities is an almost " new " cartridge subject for us audiophiles. Well, I care about and trhough several first hand experiences with vintage and today cartridges I understand its main importance on a cartriudge design.

In the other side, the Telarc 1812 recording ( as I posted ) was and is forbidden by the audio analog community mainly by ignorance, I was part of that but when you go deeper in the Telarc 1812 subject and listen and learn about then you know that was a mistake not take that recording in count.

The recording is not about ( but it is. ) the cannon shots, the recording tell us many other things that helps not only as a cartridge set up or audio system evaluation but a good recording too.

I remember when I started my first posts in Agon: there were several audio subjects that no one " touched " and when one of us touched no one posted about and the ones that did it were against those audio subjects that today all are in agreement.

Dougdeacon, here in México people say: " everything fall down through the time by its own weight ".

Today a gentleman that was a digital hard enemy already accept the today top quality. I told him several times that digital is a top alternative and he said no: he even started a thread where he already learned about.

This is the way is the audio life: a continuous learning road.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Dougdeacon: This is what " finally " JC posted here:

++++ " This ( better cartridge tracking abilities ) has the side-effect of lessening the intensity of the loads on the tonearm, which can seem to be a benefit if the tonearm has a resonance-prone mechanical structure, and can improve the tracking of a tonearm with lower-grade bearings or imperfectly adjusted/unevenly worn bearings. " ++++

he named as " side-effect " when I name that: advantages ( what is inside the brackets is mine to understand the quote. ).

he said: " if the tonearm has a resonance-prone mechanical structure... ", well all tonearms some way or the other has it.

++++ " a tonearm with lower-grade bearings " ++++

it does not matters if has low or high grade bearings because bearings always vibrate/resonate causing distortions at the cartridge trhough the tonearm wand feedback.

But there are oter important advantages at the cartridge/LP level:

the cartridge rides the grooves, staying in contact " always ", easily following the grooves modulation adding almost no other vibrations ( generated because not so good cartridge trackin abilities ) transmited by the cantilever and from here to the overall suspension/motor/cartridge body.

All those additional vibrations/resonances at the cartridge/grooves/tonearm means higher distortions and less and non-accurate musical information.

I insist that there is no precise evidence that cartridge tracking abilities is not a welcomed characteristic for the MUSIC and we listeners.

Dougdeacon, I can't find out any single trade-off but only advantages. So for me today the high cartridge tracking abilities is a must to have by design and a parameter that always ( today ) makes a differencefor the better.

That's my take: which's yours?. Yes, I can be wrong but some one must prove it with facts.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Doug, I made me several times questions about all those old white papers by Shure, Stanton, Empire, ADC, Ortofon and many others where they were very emphatic of the critical importance of self cartridge tracking abilities in a cartridge design to achieve the best cartridge quality performance.

Could been wrong?, I don't think so: to many facts and experiences around that tell me all were right.

then: why vintage and today LOMC cartridge designers almost " does not cares " about?

whom told almost all LOMC manufacturers that 60um to 80um on track abilities value is enough?

why almost all LOMC designs came and comes with low to " medium " compliance?

any one of them tested their designs with high compliance against the low one or even intented to improve ( " severely " ) their cartridge design trackin abilities ? what they found out?

Years ago I was thinking and almost convinced that exist a serious impediment ( by design ) to manufacture a high compliance ( high tracking abilities. I know that there are other parameters to take in count through the cartridge design to achieve it. ) LOMC cartridge that can performs at top new quality level: to set new standards.

I was wrong because there is no cartridge design impediment to achieve it and the several vintage and today LOMC cartridge with high tracking abilities and top quality performance level: prove it.

Denon, Ortofon, Highphonic, Entré/My Sonic Labs, Linn, Satin, Sumiko, Benz Micro, Wilson Benesh and many more are proved facts on the whole subject.

For me is important to continue insisting in the subject because for whatever reasons we don't have the quality cartridge performance that can be achieved: in favor of MUSIC and in favor of we audiophiles that at the end are the ones that mantain ( through our each one money ) the lovely audio industry.

Where are the professional reviewers that many people ( certainly not me ) think are the " gurus " that is supposed are the ones that must help ( IMHO is their main responsability. ) all of us audiophiles in MUSIC benefit?

Why in October 2013 after so many many years of analog audio are we discussing ( almost starting!!! ) the cartridge tracking abilities that must be a solved issue?

R.

Yes, maybe some manufacturers/audiophiles/reviewers think is a solved one when ( IMHO ) certainly it's not, a mistake or a wrong way to think about: but why? because no one ask it? or because ignorance?

R.