Regards, El Diablo (Grin): Watching the Asatic for the fifth time, will probably continue to vacillate until it's no longer available, then regrets. The XV-15 is not the be-all/end-all of carts but it is a very honest, "true to the recording" cart. Punchy. Considering D2000Q stylus (quadrahedron, 4 channel) or JICO Shibata. There's also currently a tempting 881S offered at a very reasonable B.I.N., a C.A. Virtuoso up for bid too. Must remind myself, "patience".
Without having yet heard the 500EE, with it's excellent (for a two coil cart) specs, the probability of the Asatic 300 being a better cart is accepted through it's numerous positive reviews. Anticipate the 500 performance to be in the neighborhood of the Shure M75E T2, a most entertaining cart & will be happy to add it to my collection. Unearthed a 3-5gm VTF conical stylus in my kit, will audition it soon on a sacrificial Lp. The Astatic will most likely join the ranks too, your recommendations are not without influence.
In the continuing objective of increasing knowledge concerning these largely vintage pickups, I appreciate reading the comments on other Pickering-Stanton carts. The stout cantilevers are more capable than they appear, light & rigid, special coatings. I'm about to conclude that W. O. Stanton & Norman Pickering knew their business.
Peace, |
Regards, Raul: One less Pickering XLZ-4500. http://www.pickeringuk.com/hifi.html. Diamond Stereohedron Output 0.33mv (MC level) Frequency range 10 to 50k Tracking force 0.5 gram to 1.5 grams Tracking ability 100 microns Compliance 25 cu Channel separation 35db Load 50 - 250 ohms pf no limit Effective mass 5g Peace, |
P.S. Jorsan: Replacement (OEM) 3500 & 4500 styli are available, IIRC Lewm is using the Pickering 7500 stylus in his LZS? Lew?
I've dealt with Pickering UK previously, no concerns. PayPal.
Peace, |
Regards, Dgarretson: "The old 500EL is 12Um/mN and had an output of 1.0mV/cm/sec. The output of the 71EE is .9mV/cm/sec, and the Emk2 & EEmk2 are both .8mV/cm/sec." Found this here: http://forums.audioreview.com/analog-room/stanton-881s-stylus-replacement-new-cartridge-28162-5.htmlwhich is a cornucopia of info from two former Stanton employees, 500/V15, 681/XV15, 881/XV3000 & 981. The 500 is (depending on stylus) typically described as nom. 3/4/5mV output. If you'd like me to describe the difference in measurement, someone will need to explain it to me first :-) . Peace, |
Regards, Fleib: Dgarretsons' worrisome question, -" whether cantilever and stylus replacement (---) can raise the performance of more affordable mid-line bodies to surpass those $500 exotics. And if so, which ones?"- well, the considerations may be somewhat more intricate than one might wish for. Stanton 500/Pickering V15 and NP, two coil moving magnet. Stanton 600/Pickering Phase IV and others with "IV", four coil moving iron. Stanton 680, 681, Pickering XV-15, four coil moving iron. Stanton 880, 881, 980, 981, high or low impedance, Pickering XSV-series, XLZ7500, 4500 & 3500, quadraphonic capability, four coil moving magnet. "Mk-11" models have samarium-cobalt magnets. But then things get a little more complicated. Collected this, and the previous cart associations, from Lenco Heaven. "Carl" worked on this, thanks, Carl: STANTON 980/981HZ: 800Ω, 450mH 880/881: 900Ω, 510mH Collectors Series 100: 500Ω, 270mH PICKERING XSV3000: 600Ω, 270mH XSV4000: 900Ω, 510mH XSV5000: 600Ω, 290mH XUV4500: 600Ω, 290mH Anyone see any errors? For stylus compatibility: http://www.kabusa.com/stantonx.htmSo the ability to vary loading, as Dlaloum advises, is obviously a factor. Stanton was (according to others) also involved in aerospace metallurgy, what appears to be a cheap alu. cantilever may not be so simple after all. There are also snippets suggesting that the elliptical styli for the low impedance "hybrid" carts are not to be dismissed as "also rans". Lots of options here, further complicated by the incompatibility between MM & MI groupings and styli that physically fit both types. Makes stylus swopping with an AT look easy. Hey Mike, the ATN155lc is a good selection. Looking forward to your comparison with the 15Sa/ATN20SS. ATN15XE for a more relaxed presentation, maybe too much so for some. Peace, |
Regards, Griffithds: Relaxed. Similar words: Warm, mellow, easygoing, laid-back. Antonyms: Tight, hard, rigid, harsh, severe.
In audiophile-speak, warm, romantic or organic are "buzz words" implying a lack of accuracy, coloration, wooden, wooly, smearing or the shearing off of sharp attack. The ATN15XE is, relative to the ATN20SS, "warmer", the term "relaxed" was deliberately chosen to avoid these negative connotations.
Having both the AT15Sa/ATN15XE & the 20SS, try "focused" or "detailed" (which the 20SS certainly is) before "analytical", this can also suggest clinical, aggressive or bright. Both carts are in frequent rotation, which cart is preferred depends on music, mood and inclination.
That brings us back to subjective vs. objective, a strong argument can be made for either case.
Peace, |
Regards, Griffthds: I tried my best, but ON NO!, you had to ask. An example of don't ask, you may not like the answer, for sure.
Rather than musical or analytical, it may be helpful to think in terms of speed or fluidity. These terms do avoid the typical negative connotations. Favored carts offer a fundamental connection with the music; a realistic tonality, dynamic, appropriate transient behavior, a robust solidity and satisfying uncongested flow.
If the choice MUST be between neutrality and transparency or fluidity and coherence, we're in trouble. Consideration is given to the design of a transducer for the desired effect. Arguing this is not so would be unrealistic and fortunately there are numerous carts to choose from. Although differences can be subtle, each is invested with it's special character and appeal. One perhaps suited for the purist who listens analytically, or another capable of meeting the expectations of the enthusiast who is appreciative of the involvement of a less structured live performance. Although analog is a mature medium it's unfortunate that the perfectionist must be forever frustrated in that the faultless system has not yet been developed. Consequently the subjective element arises, an element that can't be dismissed.
Anyone want to go on record as preferring a cart that isn't musical?
Peace, |
|
|
Regards, Lewm: "The Pickering XLZ/series cartridge was designed to be used in stereo systems which have high gain, low impedance MC input or use external head amps with input impedance of 100 ohms or higher."
Rummaged around & pulled out of my kit an AT-630 SUT specifically intended for the AT-30E MC, 1:10 gain. The Pickering XLZ 4500S gives singing lessons to the AT-30E (recently replaced stylus w/NOS assembly, you can do this with the 30E), & once was considered a fairly listenable cart. The AT 30E recco. loading at the head amp is 100 ohm, the AT 630 tranny works well with the Pickering into 47k at the phono section.
Tone/timbre is good. Crisp, translucent hfs, startling dynamics. Exceptionally quiet in the groove. I really like this cart.
Peace, |
|
Hi, Lew: Maybe I should expand on the previous post? The quoted text "The Pickering XLZ/series cartridge was designed to be used in stereo systems which have high gain, low impedance MC input or use external head amps with input impedance of 100 ohms or higher." is from the brochure that accompanied the Pickering XLZ 4500S. Stanton offered a dedicated pre, the BA-26, vaguely described here: http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/June%201981/113/761952/#header-logo. Pickering UK offers a specifically designed unit, the PLZ: "Made in Britain especially to match the quality of the Pickering XLZ Hybrid range and takes your existing phono stage up to Moving Coil sensitivity, this enables you to use your amplifiers normal 47k MM "phono" input for MC and will work with most MC cartridges. Totally discreet circuitry - no IC's, specifications are... Gain 27db S/N ratio 85db Freq Response 5 - 150k. Raul, the AT 630 had laid ignored for a long time. I'm quite aware of its quality. It may be "cheap as chips", however it's a functional tool and the cart is still exceeding expectations. So much so, it has no resemblance to what Lew describes his friend as hearing. I've had no need for a preamp for twenty (+) years. Right now I'm pleased to be able to listen to the XLZ, and exceedingly pleased with it's performance---in spite of the redundantly "fumigated" 630. If you're suggesting I should obtain an upgraded pre to listen to the Pickering, I'll give it consideration. Your well meant suggestions are appreciated. On a different "note", although some may observe negative connotations when reading the term crisp, in this instance it refers to quick transient response with rise time (see linked article) of less than 20 microseconds. I see little hope for either explicit terminology or reference recordings, too dang many audiophiles hanging around. :) Peace, |
Regards, Lewm: You've got it, 10:1 into MM phono at 47k. Presumed your friend is running his SUT into MM input, not line/aux, took it for granted & failed to mention it. Excellent deductive work, BTW.
Peace, |
Regards, Dgarretson: Just curious, what do you estimate the eff. mass of the arm you're using with the 981 LZS?
Considering moving my Pickering XLZ (your Stanton's "twin brother by a different father") to a 7gm eff. mass EPA-500H arm. Performing nicely on an EPA-250 arm/Yamamoto ebony headshell, hf tracing is exemplary but bass seems somewhat damped. The 250 arm has this effect with certain carts. Any mention of the quality/quantity of bass heard from your Stanton would be appreciated.
Peace, |
Regards, Dgarretson: Never mind. Found time to sit & listen attentively for the first time in about two weeks, came to the conclusion that what I'm NOT hearing is ambient information. Most likely suspect is a bottleneck at the lowly AT 630, looking into preamps for the first time in decades. (Raul is laughing, "I told you so!")
Will be watching for any additional info on the hybrid carts, thanks.
Peace, |
Regards, Dgarretson/Lew(m): Where did I read the cantilever is viscously damped? Pickering UK has original styli, the D7500S (981) stylus is gone, other appropriate styli still available, both Stereohedron and ellipticals. The 4500S XLZ (NIB) was just over 4 bills US. Paypal protection, shipped, arrived w/i a week. Il Positino was not interested. If possible, I can recover my 3gm eff. mass Inf. Black Widow from son #2, the one who thinks "loan" means "give". Meanwhile I'll try the XLZ on the 7gm. EPA-500H wand, the arm enables a strong bass presentation.
Looking hard at "pre-pres", anyone have any experience of Graham Slee's Elevator EXP? Raul? Good reviews, Stereophile AAA list (for what that's worth). Lots of loading options into MM phono. High expectations of the cart, have an intuition it'll be worth it.
Peace, |
Hi, Mechans: A feature I miss. whitmat@gmail.com.
Peace, |
Regards, all: Think I'll fire up the Ferrari F-10 & meet the pit crew at the country store three miles down the road for a sandwich. Smoked turkey, lettuce, tomato, mayo & mustard on dark bread sounds good.
Taste is the ability to make discriminating judgments about aesthetic and artistic matters.
As remembered from long ago, Immanuel Kant (Kritik der Urteilskraftwork), maintained that taste is autonomous and appreciation of art an extension of subjective experience, reflecting personal interpretation. Veblen (the conspicuous consumption dude) cynically argued instead that honor is attached to possession. Standards of taste do not reflect autonomous and eternal standards of beauty, but rather a sense of costliness passing under the pretense of beauty.
Critics of mass culture argue that contemporary standards of taste are evidence of a degradation in individual autonomy and independent judgement, this is in contradiction of the current values assigned to egalitarianism and inevitably the homogenization of value is perceived as detrimental. It should be explicit that A'goners are rarely influenced by the "lowest common denominator". Among those with an interest in music, some are characterized by an openness to a variety of musical expression which may include unamplified or acoustical instrumentation but are not restricted to it. An omnivore/univore pattern might be observed, creating a division which is strongly supported by adherents of either position, distinguishing omnivores or those who prefer a wide range of musical experience from univores, whose preferences are more restricted, some would say refined. Either type of listener may have an audio system.
W ether this leads to subjective relativism is a source of delightful, spirited and sometimes heated discussion. If there are no objective criteria of evaluation, the equalization of all hierarchies is the consequence. Wether this is seen as a failure to reproduce technically accurate aspects of audible response or whether an openness to a variety of experience as desired by the particular expectations (or peculiar, if you will) of the individual is the cause. To paint with an admittedly overly broad brush, this distinction may serve to define the difference between the sociological or technical perspectives of "high class" and "high end".
If it is accepted that taste is developed and sustained through exposure to a variety of musical forms or presentations, then an informed preference is an integral element in the selection of both composition and supporting gear, or mode and means. Just as there are those who have argued an objective evaluation can define value, others seem to suggest an exclusivist mentality results in the restriction of variety and and consequently a rigidly defined hierarchy of the acceptable. Some would find such a narrow definition of rewarding experience unnecessarily restrictive. Others maintain that if what is heard does not reflect, for instance, the intent of the composer then the result is an artificial construct, a facsimile and of diminished value. They may point out that critics of functionalists such as Emile Durkheim or Robert Merton will recognize this as teleological, that is, reversing the usual order of cause and effect by explaining things in terms of what happens afterward, not what went before.
Cars, the teleoligical and the visceral experience.
The BMW M5 is so well soundproofed, "Car and Driver" reports BMW introduces an exterior recording of the motor played through the stereo. Lexus has contracted with Yamaha's Advanced Sound Technologies Division in treating the V-10 engine in the awe inspiring LFA as a generator and developed componentry to direct the V-10s shriek to the cockpit. The Mustang GT is equipped with a resonator attached to the firewall, the Boss 302 (wow!) adds a second pair of exhausts tucked behind the rocker panels, open these up, punch it and grin while watching startled pedestrians run for cover. Returning to Europe, VW's GTI utilizes an audio file ("Soundaktor") stored in the car's computer. Played during advanced throttle application, broadcasting ALL under-the-hood sound through a dedicated speaker located near the throttle body. Can you hear me now?
Even Porche, the "nuts & bolts" driving machine, fits a Sound Symposer to the 991 GT3, 911, Panamera GTS. This consists of a tube, valve and diaphragm, when the "sport" function is selected the sounds radiating from the intake plenum are amplified. The stated objective is to ensure driver awareness of the current state of performance.
Closer to home, my new grocery-getter, a V-6 Honda Crosstour is equipped with a noise canceling application in the sound system, tuned to eliminate all cabin noises except those frequencies generated during full-throttle acceleration. This I attribute to a purely psychoacoustic intent. Cars with an abundance of decals always go faster. Don't they?
Carts (remember them?).
Moved the hybrid XLZ-4500S to the EPA-500H mid-low eff. mass arm, bass is more evident than with the 14gm eff. mass 250 wand which is a very neutral device, especially with the Yama. HS-1As ebony headshell. Personal thoughts are that the elimination of cart/arm/headshell self-resonances may not always be desirable, wether 'tis coloration or evidence of tonearm/cart matching is an open question. Virtual or visceral, car or cart---for the enthusiast, the operator's apprehension of performance just may be the most important component. The purist would, of course, have different criteria. The ongoing debate is at what point do high class (musical at the expense of accuracy?) and high end (accurate to the point of being overly analytical?) merge.
So, I've listened to the XLZ and in transient speed, imaging and absence of grain it compares well with the AT20SS and TK9/ATN25 stylus. Bass is controlled and hfs clearly defined. Mids are clean and avoid confusion during congested passages. There is an impression of distance not heard with the two others mentioned, this is most likely the fault of the entry level SUT which was ignored for decades but has now become a problem. Maybe not the equivalent of the F-10 in the realm of carts but the Pickering offers a tantalizing glimpse of exquisite performance. Problem is, it's being run on an 87 octane SUT.
I'm going to have to think about this one, and wether to try a D1800S (stereohedron), D2000Q (quadrahedron) or D2400Q stylus for the surprisingly good XV-15.
Anyone with experience with the 881S?
Peace, |
Regards, Dean_Man, Nandric: Thanks for your input regarding the 881S. In the past, the Stanton/Pickering carts were viewed as broadcast DJ or homeowner quality, the mistake was mine. Lew's positive hints relating to the 981 inspired investigation.
Jim, the AT leads are a favorite. Also of twisted copper and relatively thick, Hitachi SSL-101 (search ebay) leads are comparable. LCOFC rather than PCOCC and slightly more flexible, and also slightly warmer sounding than the ATs. I've also an MG10 headshell, suspect there's an 881S in my future, thanks again for your comments and set-up tips. BTW, have briefly auditioned the Stant. 500EE-11/D5100 stylus, a two coil/solid core design. A straight-forward performer, need to listen to it more before reaching any understanding of the character of this "primitive" transducer, surely there's good reason for it's fifty year production run.
Nikola, from what I can gather, any of the carts with the "11" designation have samarium cobalt magnets. As appropriate for the decade of production, quaintly referred to as "Space Age" magnets. A lowering of moving cantilever mass was the intended target for MM carts. In contrast to some of the more verbose posts (eh-hem?) found here, the economy of words in your approval of the 881 is appreciated.
Peace, |
Hi, Lew: Learned a little about cantilever materials, resonance, stylus profiles & loading from swapping styli, would like to know more. Must confess, even tried a few "square pegs in round holes". Fortunately, curiosity didn't kill the cart.
F-10 or F-18, wouldn't either be a memorable experience?
Peace, |
Regards, Dlaloum: Apologies for yesterdays hurried post, the reference was, as you surmised, measuring tip mass through resonance without taking into consideration material used in cantilever construction. Your posts are always informed and substantiated. The reply was intended as comment, not criticism. Please don't think it's presumed you're unaware of resonance qualities of differing materials. Mea culpa.
Your post did open the door to a different matter, I should have addressed the forum rather than "Dlaloum". Allow me the opportunity to remove my foot from my mouth and instead step into that opened door. :)
Regards, all: In the past, a cartridge exhibiting any discernible degree of microphonics was personally disregarded. Detail retrieval and transient behavior has been a focus, these others have been viewed as colored or euphoric but just why have so many of these been considered among the best of the breed? Those I have with stamped metal mounts, plastic or clip mounts such as the Empire 1000 Z/EX. Pickering XLZ/4500S, XV-15/D750, Phase 4 (interesting 4 coil design), Stant. 500E-11 (2 coil), Grace F-9 & L, even the entry level Signet TK(x) & TK(x)a carts are in this "microphonic" category. Another, the Empire 4000D-111, hit the vinyl with remarkable results, even though not yet run-in. Reportedly, the well thought of 881S & XSV 3000 are also microphonic.
Six turntables, seven arms (three of which are interchangeable on two TT's), 25+ headshells and 50+ carts results in nearly 14,000 possibilities, not involving the miriad of compatible stylus exchanges. Giving it some thought, here's what seems to be going on.
An electric current will be induced in any closed circuit when the magnetic flux through a surface bounded by the conductor changes, whether the field itself changes in strength or the conductor is moved through it. Vibration modulates the magnetic flux linking the coil, thereby inducing an alternating current through the coil. Some high-output pickups employ very strong magnets, thus creating more flux and thereby more output. This can be detrimental to the final sound because the magnet's pull on the core can cause problems with intonation as well as damp the cantilever and reduce sustain. High-output cartridges have more turns of wire to increase the voltage generated by the cantilever's movement, this also increases the pickup's output resistance/impedance, which can affect high frequencies. Moving tip mass is another factor.
A cartridge doesn't care where it's signal originates. In the case where there is a mismatch of cartridge compliance/TA eff. mass or if the cartridge is not isolated by a buffer of some description, then tonearm, plinth, turntable, headshell or acoustic resonance is returned to the cartridge. The relevant amplification factor depends on the shape, material and mass of the article through which the resonance moves and it's commonly recognized that by adjusting its characteristic properties one may optimize the response of the system. The appearance of resonance is common for systems and isolation, damping and noise play an prominent role. This constitutes an important consideration in the characterization of these systems and can put to use for *controlling their basic properties*. Hmmm.
When considering resonance, four factors are taken into consideration. These are: 1. wavelength 2. plain wave propagation 3. reflection 4. phase matching. Destructive resonance occurs when waves interfere with each other, A+B=0. In a situation in which constructive resonance, or constructive interference exists, A+B=AB, this is a condition in which enhanced resonance is observed. Resonance, depending on the degree the cartridge or tonearm is damped or performs as a vibrational sink (open or closed system) may to some degree be either in phase or not. From a listener's perspective, with corrective loading styli assemblies from the relatively well-damped and neutral AT & Shure carts can be exchanged with relative impunity. Stanton/Pickering carts seem to be much more resonant tuned. Phase anomalies are audible with such exchanges, do so with trepidation.
Martin Collums reviewed cartridges, tonearms and turntables in his 1977 book, "Hi-Fi Choice Turntables and Cartridges". Raul provided a link to a table listing those cartridges reviewed, unfortunately I've lost the link to the Vinyl Engine file but there were a number of carts with high marks in the usual technical specs downgraded from his "Recommended" list on the criteria of "listenability".
Tube amplification and straight-through MOSFET (zero NFB) also have audible resonant characteristics. In the perpetual debate between accurate and musical, maybe a little "listenability" is a positive attribute?
"(and that wee little resonance can't be such a big deal can it ?!)"
Peace, |
|
Regards, Dlaloum: Would this description take into consideration the different resonant characteristics, f. instance, a brass rod and a wooden dowel of equal mass (or equal dimension) would exhibit differing properties?
As resonances may be of a constructive or destructive nature, your post might be read as confirmation of one of the original tenants of this thread, that of the importance of matching cart/headshell/arm/loading (no comment on cables) and their impact on resonance, be it of the boundary, line, or self-resonance of stylus, cart, TA, plinth, headshell, acoustical & (it sometimes seems) ad infinitum? Why would one be surprised that a "monolithic" design would perform best on the TA it was designed to be supported by?
From another perspective this may be, for those who enjoy the different presentations of a variety of carts, a convincing argument for utilizing an arm offering changeability of headshells of differing mass or material.
Recently found a NOS stylus for Empire 4000D-111, then a stylusless cart for which tracking indicates delivery today. Pickering XV-15/D750 is singing very nicely on an ADC 6.5gm mag. headshell, with the flimsy mounting ears on the cart one would anticipate a degree of self-resonance returned to the stylus. The Empire has the same arrangement, hope it "resonates" with this listener as well as does the Pickering.
Heretical, ain't it?
Peace, |
Regards, Lew, Fleib. And with your forbearance, Dover, an elaboration of your comments and an open question: Good points by all. Couple of joins not yet discussed, one where the cart meets the headshell, of whatever description it may be, it does exist. The second, the pivot, or gimbal. Then there's the interface of post to base, some say all the way to the spindle and ultimately, on perhaps a YORX turntable, returning to the vinyl.
And all those boundary resonances with their sly phase shifts and ringing.
Boundary conditions do effect the resonance frequency. The resonance frequency is influenced by Young's modulus, and geometry. It gives me a headache to think about such but the resonance characteristics of a beam are determined by: 1. Young's modulus, 2. The cross-section of the beam 3. The mass per length 4. The associated eigenvalue, or the self-resonance of the beam as described by the preceding factors. This seems inevitable when the beam of a tonearm is made rigid, this is generally considered a good thing.
In the case of resonance in a beam, there is a probability that not just the primary tone but also the second and third overtones are also excited. Measures to correct this are selection of the material itself, damping of the tube by external or internal applications such as sand, blue tack or teflon tape, by tapering or curving the beam, by sleeving the beam in order to interrupt linear resonance through the entire length, silicone damping, the list can get pretty long.
In a Jan. 2004 paper delivered by Xinqi Chen, Sulin Zhang, Gregory J. Wagner, (and Weiqiang Ding, and Rodney S. Ruoff), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, this is described: "Variation in cross section was taken into account by using a modified expression for the natural frequency based on a perturbation solution in the small parameter e (eigenvalue)=(D1-D0)/D0 , where D0 is the diameter at the fixed end of the vibrating rod and D1 is the diameter at the free end. The cross-sectional area and moment of inertia as functions of the length of the beam are then given." In plain language, overtone resonance was found to depend on the ratio of --- length to (a tapered) cross-section diameter. Thank you, gentlemen.
Then there's this worrisome bit: "the shift in frequency is *negative* for the fundamental mode due to --- increase of mass, but *positive* for the higher modes (2nd, 3rd 4th overtones), for which increased stiffness dominates over the increased mass." My thinking cap for that one, please?
It needs to be clarified that these fellows were concerned with the behavior of fibers, but clearly felt (quote) "If there are ‘‘problems’’ associated with microscale samples, it is likely that the same sorts of issues will arise with nanoscale samples." Coming from the scientific community, this is a fairly assertive statement but one can, naturally, draw one's own conclusions.
This is presuming a "perfectly clamped beam". In a beam which is damped, then boundary effects are to some degree deflected because, as Fleib points out, by the laws of conservation of energy vibration is then transformed into heat.
In the instance of a tonearm, it is neither perfectly clamped or perfectly free. Beyond theory and when put into practice, this means it is best that a number of samples be measured in order to determine the most appropriate set of values. Then there's cantilever resonance, cartridge self resonance (eigenvalue again), damping through suspension or tie wire, underdamping/overdamping of the electrical kind---.
It is, for me, all very complicated but unless one has had the good fortune to own a tonearm and cartridge perfectly matched and also perfectly meeting the listener's expectations then the ability to select appropriate mass, material and cross section through the exchanging of headshells is of some value, but that's a personal opinion.
AND---
Neither supposition or proposition, just the promised question: Being fairly aware of the points in making a case for damping and line transmission of resonance to the mass of the plinth in it's function as a vibrational sink, this does seem the best supported approach. However, as there are a number of evidently microphonic cartridges that have sneaked into the ranks of well regarded pickups, even a gentle touch of the Empire 4000D-111 is to be heard through the speakers and there aren't many complaints about that particularly dynamic cartridge. Is it possible that tuned mechanical feedback is an intentional component of design? (Henry loaned me several "?'s", he cranks them out by the hundreds & will never miss these few). ;)
Peace, |
Regards, Danny: Initally mounted on an ADC mag. shell, spotlight was a little too heavy on the lower mids. Moved the Empire to a Yokohama HS3 8.5gm boxwood headshell & fat AT twisted copper leads and thought this put things in better order, even though I am a confessed midrange gourmand. Sounds very nice. Sometime in the future will try it on alu., carbon fiber and one of Henry's 9.5gm ebony headshells, I suspect greater mass may challenge the cart's high compliance. I appreciate the rich tonality and dynamics of the cart as set up now. If "listenability" could be measured I'd give this one high marks.
Moving magnet generators are either over, under or critically damped, the same for mechanical considerations. In the strictest interpretation of your question, no, overdamping will not improve the performance of the cart and always keep in mind that for every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.
Was not aware there was a solid mount version of the 4000D and I'm somehow distressed to hear that there is as now I'll be looking for yet another cart. The back plate for the pins-out on yours is white?
Any impressions of your Grace F-8(E?) yet?
Peace, |
Regards, 4000D/111 owners: Bought locally & assured that although the markings are scuffed it's a 4000D/111 cart. It seems everyone else has the solid mount, this one is on a clip-on metal mount, white back plate. Have I been had?
No issues with the stylus, came in original "Genuine Empire discrete 4 channel, Tip radius 4 dimensional" packaging. Whatever the cart's DNA may be, euphoric is a good description of it's performance.
Please advise.
Peace, |
Regards, gentlemen: Thanks to all for your replies. It seems that I've a 4000 body of some description? If motors are the same, for all variations, then the cart can be accurately referred to as an Empire 4000? Equipped with the stylus, S-4000D/111 the cart would then be best identified as an Empire 4000 w/4000D/111 stylus? I can live with that. (Henry, I'm working on the ?'s)
Danny (Acman3), thanks for the Lenco Heaven link, filled in some missing info, and a good piece of advice. On my somewhat well-damped EPA-250 arm, to move the arm with the queuing raised resulted in a sound like a cat clawing a screen. In the discussion of styli, the example I have (I believe you're familiar with it?) is Empire Scientific, Manuf. by Empire Scientific, long tapered cantilever, referred to in that thread as "silver" rather than "gold". By lowering the all-plastic swing down stylus protector to a midway position it can be easily removed, the cartridge is transformed. Hfs more to the front and bass is tauter. Vocal glottals/gutturals are delivered with accuracy & the sometimes difficult to accurately capture "Sweet Baby James" is a delightful listen.
And thank you, Raul, for your encouragement regarding the cart. A very happy camper here!
Peace, |
Regards, Halcro: My good friend Henry, I have to agree with your thoughts that if mechanical resonance is transferred from cart to arm or vice versa, something's awry. Your insistence on perfection is inspiring. As to mechanical resonance, like Custer, who probably thought things didn't work out perfectly at the Little Big Horn you're surrounded, in this case by members of the Itexists tribe.
The 1000 Z/EX, too long a time since last listen, thanks for reminding me.
Peace, |
Regards all: Have been looking at the Grace F-14 offered on a popular on-line auction site. Clear stylus grip is common to the "luminous trace" stylus, a little spendy for an unknown cart. I've a F9-L, luscious mids & hfs sparkle, a hint of congestion on complicated/crowded passages as is observed on several of the higher output carts. A trade-off of body and presence for crisp transients but still a favorite, one I allow on the tonearm two or three times a year. Prowling around on the internet led to this, (clip & paste from a currently running thread over at the V. Asylum):
"The Pearl is an OEM cart that shares the same body with a number of highly regarded carts including the Shelter 201, Grace F9s, A&R Cambridge 77, and also it appears the limited edition Jico MM1."
As all vintage gear comes from non-smoking/pet free homes do these all smell the same?
Peace, |
Regards, all: Either a cart is the "same as", or not. Was hoping someone might compare the stylus assemblies from Pearl, Shelter, Cambridge/Garrott 77 & Grace F9, confirm the stylus assembly for the above were compatible, or not.
Not quite as significant as the location of Task Force 34, the one that Adm. Halsey slightly misplaced in the Battle of Luzan during WW11, but still "The world wants to know". (At least one of us would).
Peace, |
Regards, Griffithds, Raul, Acman3: Thanks for your efforts, guys. It would be nice to have a spare for retiping.
Peace, |
Regards, Lew: It's recognized MM carts have resonance peaks at high frequencies. The height of these peaks can be varied by changing load resistance. Resonance frequency, or the center of the peak frequency, can be altered by changing the load capacitance. If cap. is increased then the resonance freq. is lowered. The *audible* outcome is that by increasing KOhm, hfs become more apparent, when capacitance is adjusted, the upper mids are more influenced. Extending resistance to 100k does enable hf response into the nom. 35kHz+ range where the rear signals for four channel playback are embedded, the majority of carts discussed here have that capability. To this layman/listener, resistance essentially influences "how much" hf response, capacitance "where". Visualize a bell shaped curve. Resistance will raise or lower the response in the vertical plane, capacitance moves the center left/right on the horizontal scale. By combining settings, equalization through loading is the effective outcome and a variety of responses can be obtained. I'm not sure manuf. recommendations are are to be adhered to as if written in stone, they're just recommendations. Neither should they be disregarded. Awareness of these references can help in cart selection or in identifying the source of unbalanced response. Avoiding the always debatable subject of preference, it's probably safe to suggest system and room influences are a factor. Silk dome, aluminum, horn, beryllium or foil tweeters, air suspension, ported or planar speakers, MOSFET, tube, IC or discrete amplification? Cantilever build, damping through suspension or tie-wire, stylus profile &c., all contribute to a situation where "best" is best avoided. PERSONALLY, unless hf response is noticeably not proportionate, 47k & 150pF suits the majority of my AT carts, a Shure M75E-T2 or M97xE (YMMV) at 100k. Acutex's at 100k/300-350pF. With the two Grace carts here (9E & L), hfs are spectacular at 100k but sometimes distracting, for these "tweeners", a set of loading plugs would be handy. Back "in the day", it was not unusual for an audiophile to obtain a number of ICs of differing capacitance, these were matched to the cart in play. For a fun read, 35 years later, pgs. 8-13: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-06-01-7710b.pdfI enjoyed in particular the cryptic comment; "some manufacturers may design their cartridges for non-flat playback response." Peace, |
|
Regards, Raul: "IMHO this depends on each audio system quality level performance."
Nicely phrased but I'm not buying entirely into it. Try an AT440MLa at 100k, you may want to cover your ears first. ;)
Peace, |
Regards, Raul: Understood, and your comment on the level of system performance is also unarguable.
If the condition of "Purist" is the highest state of audiophile evolution, please remind yourself that comments relative to the Grace (I've two, they're not for sale) originate from a knuckle dragging midrange junkie. Nolo contendre. Your patience and civility are observed and appreciated.
Peace, |
Regards, Nikola: Send your "incredible" cart to me! Currently experimenting with replacing mounts with wood. I think you'll agree you've never heard it sound like it does when returned. ;)
Peace, |
|
Regards, Raul: Some specs for the G800, from Turntableneedles.com: Stylus: .6mil Conical Bonded Diamond tip Cantilever: Alloy round tube Tracking Force: 1.5 - 3.5 grams Output Level: 5mV rms 5cm/sec. @ 1Khz Frequency Range: 20 - 20Khz Load Impedance: 47-100K ohm Channel Seperation: >20dB @ 1Khz Internal Inductance: 450mH Total weight w/needle:7grams That site also suggests there is a Tenorel cart that is a rebrand of the G800. Internal inductance is relatively low, with the appropriate stylus/cantilever hf response should reach into the regions attained by the several cartridges that are highly regarded in this thread. Described elsewhere as a "work horse" from the mid '70's, apparently an IM design. Having a plastic mount and MU metal shrouding for the coils, this cart would seem to be a good candidate for tweaking. Keeping in mind all the references to cantilever and cartridge self-resonances, and that the G-800 is mated to a plastic mount, isolation or integration to the headshell/arm should be a factor in performance. One might also consider the given tracking angle of 15*, this is a very vintage design, favorable comments concerning it's performance seem to confirm that N. Pickering, W. Stanton and P. Pritchard knew a thing or two. http://garrardmatters.freeforums.org/goldring-g800-t62.htmlNikola---Beryllium/Gyger 11, either you're teasing us again or you're well ahead of the curve! Peace, |
Regards, CT0517: Sounds like an interesting shivaree (just for you, Nikola, derived from the French, Stltrains already knows). The "Italian" does have an offering for both the 312 & 412 carts, as well as the 415 which I still cannot bring myself to enjoy. Although they lack the transient "snap" and near merciless capture of detail of the 420, the 312 and 412 are sonically more akin to the warmer 320, which most agree is a worthy cart. All demonstrate exemplary separation and a deep/wide soundstage.
Coincidentally, another 'goner and I were just exchanging emails concerning the potential improvement (YMMV) of the flimsy little LPM carts through isolation devices. Having several of the 400 series bodies, next project is to fashion a wood mount for one. Hopefully this will help to clean up the midrange glare that prevents my ease of listening to the 415 stylus. When is your cart klatch scheduled? IIRC you're stuck way out in the Canadian bush & shipping time-frame is never dependable to Canada, three days to Oz but three weeks to our neighbor nation, go figure! ;^)
BTW, for those of an adventurous nature this Acutex cousin is being bid on for another couple of days, no association with the seller & etc:
NEW OLD STOCK: MANUFACTURED C.1985 WITH A LIST PRICE OF $120.00 THE YM-P50 E WAS A HIGH END CARTRIDGE. IT INCLUDES A BLUE AN-P50 E 0.3 X 0.7 ELLIPTICAL DIAMOND STYLUS. CARTRIDGE WEIGHT IS 5.9 GRAMS AND TRACKS AT 1.25 GRAMS PLUS OR MINUS .25 GRAMS
THIS CARTRIDGE AND STYLUS WAS A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE FROM AZDEN'S ENTRY LEVEL YM-P20E.
Seek (ebay) & ye shall find---
Peace, |
Regards, Nikola: It's easy, just a matter of knowing the right incantations, the correct parts and a properly calibrated caldron to stir them in.
Poem, by Henry Gibson.
Stylus of a Shibata snake, Cantilever at the coil will shake; Banish overshoot add tone of analog, Wool of bass the cantilever's like a log, A pinch of inductance and blind-worms sing, A constrained layer mount to combat barrier resonances' ring, For the charm of powerful treble, Titanium and three poles distortion will level.
Be fast, bold, and resolute; laugh to hear The power of music, not of woman but muses born Come, lively highs or lows; Mids without artifice deftly show!
Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo: clown! Thy sibilance does sear mine ear-balls. And thy second cart, shrieks like the first. A third is like the former. A fourth! Stop soon! What, will the grain reach out like the crackle of doom? Another yet! A seventh! I'll hear no more: And yet the eighth appears, sound of breaking glass Horrible sounds! Now, I see, 'tis true; For the conical stylus Banquo inflicts upon me, Finer points, some beryllium is my plea. It's all very scientific. :)
Peace, |
Regards, Slaw: A suggestion, if I may. Try a piece of electrician's tape between the stylus assembly and top of the engine. 1/8 x 1/4" is more than sufficient. As to compliance, not sure how Acutex determined their stated cu, marketing dept. maybe?
Enjoy your Acutex.
Peace, |
Regards, Chris: Suggest you look elsewhere for your next cart. Nikola is by his own admission inseparable from the one in question.
Peace, |
Regards, Halcro: Hi, Henry. As it's a Signet, needless to say I'm familiar with the AM-10. As with all later Signets, PC (to 6n's, IIRC) OCC copper windings, hand wound & bench tested to meet spec. The AM (Analog Master)-10, it's a sleeper. The AM-10 is 490 mH, a relatively low inductance. The remainder of the series is 550 mH, all are 780 ohm DC res., 5.0mv output.
Faraday's Law states "---a voltage is induced in a circuit whenever relative motion exists between a conductor and a magnetic field and that the magnitude of this voltage is proportional to the rate of change of the flux". Voltage is determined by: 1). The number of turns of wire in the coil. 2). The speed of the relative motion between the coil and the magnet. 3). The strength of the magnetic field.
Lenz's Law states that: "the direction of an induced emf is such that it always opposes the change that is causing it". Fortunately this is not a difficult concept, even for me. It's very Neutonian. In dealing with higher output cartridges, an induced current will always OPPOSE the cantilevers' motion or change which started the induced current to a greater degree than is to be observed with a lower output cart. Think LOMC.
With some higher output carts, one may observe a gain in presence but let's not forget the laws of conservation of energy, there are opposing forces. Due to increased magnetic attraction, leading and trailing transients as well as dynamic sweep may suffer. It's been mentioned before, compliance/mechanical damping, effective tip mass, cantilever length, cross-section diameter, length and rigidity are factors to be taken into consideration. So we have here a fairly high output cart, capable of dynamic impact and body, that's the "excitement" aspect. What about lesser detail, nuance & dynamic swing? AT carts utilize the "V magnet" configuration to move moving mass nearer the pivot, a reduction of inertia relative to output when compared to more conventional cantilevers is claimed. With the magnets aligned at 45*, they are congruent to stereo groove modulations, AT thinks this is important. Signet, being upscale, refers to this as "dual flux". Introduce laminated plates to the coil, a four pole generator in order to minimize IM & maintain accurate balance, then reduce moving mass in order to recover transient response (rise/overshoot). Time to think about the stylus asembly.
The AM-10 is a bonded 0.3x0.7 elliptical, the AM-20 is a 0.3x0.7 "miniature" square cut/grain oriented nude elliptical on a "micro mass" alloy tube. Henry, although not a fan in general of elliptical styli this one (IMHO) is excellent, given response is 10-30k. Signet states that the moving mass at the end of the cantilever is critical to performance (duh!), combine a hair-thin alloy cantilever with a stylus that is more easily imagined than seen in association with a high output/low inductance engine and mount it to a non-resonant headshell. Henry, IMO your report is accurate and unusually restrained (other than your associated value, which seems a tad high). :)
Peace, |
|
Regards, Halcro: Let me say (write?) how much I enjoyed your post. Next, (excuse me, Raul) disregard Rauls advice to send the AMS-20 stylus to Axel. Remembered from several years ago, Raul posted his opinion of the AM-30, he wasn't impressed. Raul stated that the AM series were the succesors to the AT-22/25 - Signet TK9/10 carts, and were not viewed as an improvement. (Raul, I hope it would not be considered a criticism to observe that you hold yourself to some very exclusive standards.)
Henry, if you enjoy the OEM styli as is, then don't fix it as it ain't broke, the diamond quality is superb. Even if you might have to squint to see it. The assembly's configuration is comprable to any number of AT P-mounters, these will provide relatively inexpensive donor vehicles for Axel to perform his magic upon, should you choose. A BTW, the cantilever for the AM-30 is tapered alloy, the AM-20 a straight "Micro mass" alloy tube. The 40 an LC on beryllium, the 50 is ML on gold-plated beryllium.
The specs given (Fleib) were from a Signet publication. If one refers to the brochure accompanying the AT440MLa, output impedance is given as 3.2k ohms. If you or any of the better informed readers can resolve the two standards of measurment, I'd be grateful. I've not heard the 440ML, my 440MLa has resided in its case unused for three years. There are other carts that are enjoyed on a regular basis, a Signet AM-20 among them. It's a matter of personal preference so draw your own conclusions about the carts, styli, or this listener. It should also be noted that the AT440 engine is on a plastic mount, the AM carts are fixed to a solid metal bar similar to the TK9/10 carts. This makes a difference.
Since Acutex is once again fashionable, I accidentally "tore up" a Shure M75E-T2, then intentionally did the same to an Acutex LPM415 ;). The Shure is an old stand-by, a work horse with a solid bass, compeling mids & non-intrusive hf response. Pulled the cart on it's headshell out of the pile to listen to some vintage vinyl & the thing fell apart. The engine just dropped from it's plastic shroud. Hmmm. Out to the shop, fired up the table saw, drill press, belt sander & chisel. Hacked up some cocobolo wood & epoxied the M75 engine in, snugging the stylus assembly to the wood as the adhesive set. Bass is less pronounced but somewhat tighter, hfs are reduced, mids gained an immersive warmth. Pleased to report the results were very un-Shure.
There's this Acutex LPM415. I can listen to it for most of one side of an LP then it's got to go. Reminds me of irritatingly poorly rendered digital. Can't use the 415 in the car so it just sits there alot. IMO, the Acutex tri-pole engine is noteworthy for its absence of IM distortion, channel balance and soundstaging ability. It is also frequently described as "flimsy". The previous LPM3xx mount, if examined, is sturdier. An exchange of engine/mount between the two results in an audible difference. For those prone to fiddling with such, a note of caution, PUSH the cart out of it's sleeve from the rear, don't PULL it out as the backplate with the out-pins is prone to seperation. Don't bother to ask how this came to my attention. Fortunately, no harm, no foul.
Three or so weeks ago global warming took a teeny little break, so out to the shop I went to try my hand at some cart warming. When Edison was asked if he felt he has wasted time in all those failed experiments in producing a workable incandesent bulb he replied; "No, now I know XX ways not to do it". I resemble that statement. FYI, the engine is (nom.) 5/16" wide, hardware is (nom,) 1/8" ea, on a 1/2 mount headshell, the remainder is 1/16" or a max. of 1/32", each side. That's some pretty skinny wood. The OEM mount is not a suitable model for anyone inclined towards wood buchery but it can be rigged to work. Sorta'.
Next attempt will be more in line to a glued up three piece open-front/open bottom style incorporating blind nuts to capture the screws. At the top, a 20* wedge tapering to near zero at the rear, about 3/4 (+-) long & wide. It should be obvious it's a work in progress. The 415 is transformed. Glare, grain, glass, gone! Hey, I can listen to it now, and I do. 415 mk.111 this weekend?
Henry, enjoy your AM10-20, it's a Sigmutt. For a little more in the mids & if you just happen to have one laying around, a 155LC stylus is compatible.
Excuse the length of this post & always,
Peace, |
|
Regards, Henry: Tele-tweak.
I'll get serious tomorrow.
Peace, |
Regards, Raul: Allow me to address your comments concerning mid level carts and what I "like". Raul, you wrote: "The AM30 is in the middle line, is not the top of the line but if you " see " the AM50 design on cantilever/stilus is almost no different with other top AT cartridges." It is inconsistent to label a cart "mid" and then state that with a different stylus, it is "almost no different" than other TOTL carts. Shall we look into this? Carts are electro-magnetic generators. The quality of the windings, construction of cores and the care with which they are assembled are important. Once beyond electron flow and resonance characteristics of the cart, the stylus assembly is the predominant influence on audible performance. Signet carts are hand assembled with more than the usual care encountered in production examples and although a good elliptical has its charms, the midrange clarity and delicate hfs of a nude LC or Shibata profile on beryllium are a personal preference. These are rarely described as "mid level". Let's keep in mind that for the AM20 through 50 carts the generators are identical. The AM10 is of lower inductance and build quality is equivalent. There are those who would consider the lower inductance cart preferable. Cost-wise, as with so many other carts the stylus assembly is the determining factor. Examples include Goldring x800, x900 & 10xx carts, the AT15 variations, AT20 series, AT22-25, Signet TK9 &10. Let's not forget about ADC carts, the QLM-30 through XLM for instance. The examples are numerous. Your comment, as written, is inaccurate. You are in error when you write: " -as you die for the ( not me ) Signet's middle of the line models". I'll not speak for Halcro, Henry can speak for himself and in relating his experience with a cart offering an unusual quality of performance, he did so and with his usual eloquence. I read that the strengths of the cart in question were elsewhere than the mids and while midrange performance was not objectionable, Henry found those other qualities commendable. Overly polite, it ain't. There was also reference to a headshell he'd not tried before & it was found to be of some merit. As apparently you and I are both familiar with the cart, the stylus and the headshell I wonder why we'd not agree there is much to enjoy from the presence, range of response and articulate performance this particular combination offers. Posts similar to Henry's, in the past, been referred to as "a learning opportunity". One might think to thank Henry for sharing the information? You are welcome to your opinions and they are respected as being your individual preferences BUT please refrain from ascribing, unheard, a diminished quality to anothers gear, or miss-stating the preferences of others to fit certain unsubstantiated preconceptions. This is not productive behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man |
Regards, Raul: Thanks for your measured response. Was there a fight?
"maybe because our music references are different or because I like other kind of distortions and not those ones." Played bass & contra-alto clarinet with symphonic orchestra & operatic ensemble for several years. Every stage offered different acoustics, the hall & number of seats filled had an influence too. Same for studios, a direct to disc & something from Booker T. Jones replay with a noticeable difference. The effects of resonance and pressurization are well described if one finds ones' self seated in front of the tympani, oboe, bassoon & french horn to the left. There's a contrast in the experience heard (and felt) when sitting in aisle eight or the "heavens", which can also be interesting. No "Pro" experience but there are, reputedly, differences with mics & their placement. When listening to a recording I'm sometimes aware of this.
"References" necessarily imply qualifications, in real life there are variables to be dealt with. Your comment should be, and is, appreciated.
Peace, |
Regards, Storyboy, Raul: "A sampling of full-frequency stereo recordings that provide a true test of stereo-system performance": The Forty Minute Raga/Ali Akbar Khan. Johnny Puelo and his Harmonica Gang, Vol. 2. Switched-On Bach. Time Out/Dave Brubeck. Abraxas/Santana. Hair, soundtrack. Pearl/J. Joplin. Oliver/original cast. Parsley Sage Rosemary & Thyme/Simon-Garfunkle. Trombones Unlimited/Liberty label. (LST-7449, if you've just got to have this one).
From the accompanying brochure included with my 1000ZE/X stylus. Not dated but early '70s seems about right from the referenced recordings. Also, "15 degree vertical tracking angle". By RIAA agreement 20-22 degrees was adopted in 1974 (IIRC). Stylus is adaptable to Empire 9xx, 2xxx, (some) 4xxx & at least one 8xxx series cart, an X/VE. These AFAIK are moving magnet design.
Now for the good part: "Exclusive induced field moving magnet stylus".
"Who is on first."
Peace, |
Regards, Nikola: Generic styli=caveat emptor. Quality is "all over the map". For the generics, VTF is given anywhere between 1.5 & 5.0gm downforce, the quality (and condition) of the suspension may be somewhat questionable. This vendor's information is (typically) accurate: http://www.turntableneedles.com/Needle-707-DE_p_1318.html. There are other references to this assembly's (Pfansteil #707-DE) similarity to the Piezo Y-308, I believe this was discussed on this thread a year or so ago. Another vendor: http://www.thevoiceofmusic.com/catalog/part_detail.asp?PNumberBase=707&SearchType=MfgNameNeedles&MfgName=Piezo&Categories=The 4-digit code (4707) preceding the description (DE -> Diamond Elliptical, 707-D7 would be a diamond 0.7 conical) usually indicates generic, 3-digits (707), OEM. For a fresh assembly from a reputable source, search JICO. They'll have the Piezo stylus as well as an offering for several of the cross-referenced carts from the above list. No association with the above vendors. Good luck! Peace, |
Regards, Raul, Storyboy: Styli for 1xxx, 2xxx, 4xxx & 8xxx carts tested using a compass. No effect. Carts do have magnetic influence, the bass rich 8000 swings the needle from several inches away.
Peace, |
Regards, Nikola: The replacement styli from JICO seem to fall outside the category of "generic" and have pretty much gained the confidence of the audiophile community. Offered are two Akai assemblies of the Piezo YM-308 family. Variations for Kenwood, Piezo & several other brands, the Akai RS120E is $35, the remainder list for $22 to $25, if that's any indication of specs. All are conical. If compatible with your Acutex body, any of these would be of fresh manufacture. JICO is responsive to email queries, compliance values would be a consideration.
There is a good probability the "V-M Audio" (link in previous post) listing for the stylus *707-DE is an OEM Piezo replacement, identified as an an elliptical. If so (the several OEM styli I've purchased there have been exactly as listed), this might be an interesting assembly with the potential for acceptable performance. If the description is accurate, it would be anticipated as the equivalent of an M310E, if there is such an animal. I've found the vendor responsible, well informed and quick to respond.
Considering the influence of the cantilever/stylus on performance it should go without mention that what is heard is a Pfansteil 707-DE, or a JICO YM-308, not the Acutex M320STR-111, a modified nude Shibata. If my objective were an Axel M320ML-Ruby (whatever), and were certain of the fit, the fresh suspension of the JICO assembly would be a first choice for Axel's delicate attentions.
Caveat emptor is still in effect, there's no assurance the fitment of the Piezo YM-308 assembly is correct for the Acutex M3xx body. Perhaps someone else can offer advice? Or, PayPal Gary at V-M Audio $12.00 & then you're just a click away from being the authority. :)
Again, good luck &
Peace, |
Regards, Frogman: The Acutex's are chameleons. It's been mentioned before. Tonearm/cart matching is as influential to performance as any of the carts I'm familiar with. Have been doing some "TT rolling", the Acutex 420 is a complete stranger when heard on the 12" graphite arm on a Pio. PL-70L 11 with variable silicone damping. The upper-mids have taken several steps forward in apparency as compared to the impressive bass heard on the EPA-250 arm. To my ears, this is not an improvement, however the AT20SS gains hf clarity, a tautened body in the bass registers and a very attractive mid-range luster on the Pio. Exclusive arm. Headshell build materials, the thickness of those materials as well as isolation techniques and the materials involved all have an easily heard influence on the Acutex LPM series of cartridges.
Cartridges share the category of "transducer" with microphones. The LPMs are responsive to the vinyl below as well as (IMHO) more so than the usual influence of the arm above. Practical observation and a considered position as an enthusiast relieves one of the professional requirements of measuring resonant nodes of a pipe, the Young's modulus of a specific material, the relation of boundary resonance to line transmission of those resonances, or the influence of taper, sleeving or bend of that pipe. I have noticed that some cartridges do well on a specific tonearm, not so well on another. This, at my informational level, is frequently referred to as "synergy".
Is it possible that with certain microphonic carts, the characteristics of the tonearm are more evident? This is not a suggestion that those who are critical of the 420 have inadequate gear but rather that the mount is not the Acutex's best feature.
Frogman, IMHO there is a certain mechanical resonance related "brassy/boomy" quality heard with the Acutex LPM 4xx carts on the several tonearms I have available. This quality is (again, IMHO) favorably reduced with a mount fashioned of a material other than the flimsy plastic provided by Acutex, even the mount from the earlier 3xx carts offer improvement with a 4xx generator fitted. In all other considerations & in particular balance, soundstage & imaging, I believe the cart is excellent.
Peace, |