Dear Frogman: +++++ " nformation that is present in real life is lost by the recording process.... " +++++
and I can add :2 and during playback proccess too ".
As I posted, a comparison between what we have at home has no comparison against live music: main factor is that in a live event there is nothing in between music and you but the air instead what we hear in a LP has over 100 links/veils/filters that gives to the sound a different " face ". The speed, dynamics, no-distortions, fflow, tone color, natural agresiveness and the like diminish the real " power of music " the feeling and emotions that only the live music can gives in its own way.
I repeat: nothing but the air between music and each one of us, THIS IS THE WHOILE DIFFERENCE.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " my 980LZS driving the high gain phono stage.... "+++++
as with the LOMC cartridge the Stanton was not designed for SUTs.
Now, I don't know why your 980 can't " shine " at 100 ohms. My 981 certainly dit it at that load impedance but my Phonolinepreamp is way different from yours. Now, remember that lower impedance meand lower SPL so when we compare at higher impedance we have to match the SPL under any carrtridge comparisons.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jorsan Usually all my Koetsu experiences " demanded " in my set up a tiny positive SRA/VTA but this could change on your set up.
We all know that the cartridge SRA have to coincide with the LP cutting angle but this is no way to fulfil due to LP imperfections that all we know so we have to try/test in each set up and decide about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: I owned any single SUT from the early 80's by AT. From the AT630 to the AT1000T.
The 630 was not an entry level one but a way mediocre SUT that IMHO can't makes any " favor " to no cartridge. Forgeret about specs but one extremely important: the AT 630 weight is less than 200grs against the AT1000T that weights over 8kg. From where came that SUT weight: from the transformers as better and bigger transformer ( obviously according a good design like the AT one. ) as better frequency extremes response, especially on the bass.
I repect what you are hearing but let to tell you: its next " brother " ( top step ) the AT650 fumigate the 630 and the 700T or the AT1000T are a totally different " face " on qualioty performance level.
IMHO any god designed headamp outperform the 630. I believe what you posted but makes no sense to me knowing that 630 that other than degradation helps to nothing but an " emergency ".Crisp sound almost always means: " distortions ", at least that's my experiences.
Maybe you are doing " something " with that 630 that I'm unaware.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " 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. " +++++
even that's not the same Lewm's model I posted that my 981L at 100 ohms performs not " quite good " but very good and as you with " no resemblance to what Lewm describes ": he and his friend are hearing.
++++ " 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. " ++++
I'm not suggesting a preamp change but only saying that IMHO the 630 is not up to the task. I have preferences ( for good reasons. )for Active High Gain phono stages against any SUT. That's all. My comment was only that: a comment on what's that SUT.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: +++++ " 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. " +++++
even that's not the same Lewm's model I posted that my 981L at 100 ohms performs not " quite good " but very good and as you with " no resemblance to what Lewm describes ": he and his friend are hearing.
++++ " 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. " ++++
I'm not suggesting a preamp change but only saying that IMHO the 630 is not up to the task. I have preferences ( for good reasons. )for Active High Gain phono stages against any SUT. That's all. My comment was only that: a comment on what's that SUT.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stanton/Pickering Lovers: If you have interest to go a little deeper on the Stanton cartridge alternatives/subject this link could help you. This guys are very good about inclusive Richard writed a book that's considered the Stanton/Pickering Bible for many people, I think the book is still on sale you only have to contact Richard:
http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=158.0
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: I did not and now I can't because my system still down but that is not the subject due that in my system at 100R performs very good with no sign of what you posted.
Maybe you can make a test: that your friend borrowed his sample and test it in your system and see if duplicate what you already listened.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: My take on this critic/important subject is and was analized just from the begin of this thread:
CARTRIDGE TRACKING HABILITIES.
IMHO this is the " name of the game ": MM/MI cartridges share a common characteristic that's that are high compliance devices where the LOMC are low to medium compliance ones. IMHO that MM/MI compliance characteristics ( of course that kind of suspension/cantilever and stylus shape have influence and are part of those cartridge habilities. ) makes the difference when in these kind of cartridges the stylus tip is almost always in the groove against the LOMC that lose contact ( minute/tiny/micro-level. ) with the groove in comparison with the MM/MIs.
Stay in the groove not only means lower tracking distortion but more musical information where will comes the harmonics and the whole " thing ". So IMHO the LOMC cartridgesw have higher tracking distortions and less overall musical information: that's why we can't " smell the roses " with the LOMC cartridges. Please read the last Downunder's post where he claims that he prefers his stand alone Technics P100CMK4 to his new and top of the line Lyra Atlas. The P100CMK4 is a very very good tracker.
Regaqrds and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: J.Carr posted something that all of us are hearing onece and again every single day and that Dlaloum made a " similar " reference months ago ( Dlaloum refered to : how much of what we heard at high frequencies is real frequency response and how much is IMD/distortions ):
+++++ " Even if the LP only extends out to 5kHz, distortion can "create" 10kHz, 15kHz, 20kHz and so on " +++++
this is why is so important to get as lower it can the cartridge tracking distortions. The didtortion and the generated harmonics is something that's part on every single audio system all over electronics, cartridges or speakers.
I posted several times that many times that: crisp, open, brillant, transparent and " inner detail " are only distortions high distortions and not really music information but we are accustom to and we think that's what is in the recording that that is musical information when it is not but distortions.
Till today and thanks to the J.Carr post I heve a part of the explanation on what we hear that has a high content of distortions and that we are not aware that are distortions.
I know I'm aware and that's what I supported for years but even some of you think I'm " crazy " or " deaf " about because for example Lewm posted in a ironic way something like this: " because he is aware or can hear distortions and we can't ".
Anyway, very good point on what J.Carr posted about.
Everything the same on cartridge quality level performance what really define that quality level is the phono stage. We all know this but only a few gives the real importance of this link on the analog quality performance medium. Of course like Lewm/Dover pointed out the extra gain need it for the LOMC cartridges makes a difference and we can't think a difference for the better: any additional stages where the cartridge signal must pass means degradation and added distortions and we can hear it if we are aware of those distortio0ns. That's why is so critic the phono stage for LOMC cartridges and I agree with some of you that think that there are not many truly good phono stage designs out there. In this regards of added signal stages for the LOMC ones these kind of cartridges are in clear disadvantage against the MM/MIs but the MM/MIs is a challenge too and I know that as with the LOMC phono stages there are not many MM phono stages up to MM needs and one reason is that the designers does not cares about the MM/MI alternative.
The high-end phono stages that comes with both options ( LOMC and MM/MI ) its real " design effort " goes on the LOMC side and the MM/MI alternative is only a " side line " many times only to have an additional " facility " to the customer but way lower quality in the design.
I hope that sooner or latter the phono stage designers not only be better ones with the LOMCs but more important with the MM/MIs that due to its " poor " design this kind of cartridge is in disadvantage and even that we love it by comparisons.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear Dgarretson: +++++ " detailed performance-- a very detailed but smooth and refined treble. " +++++
agree with you. Perhaps the main difference between the L and H Stanton models reside here where IMHO the H one put more " drama " down there a more real " drama " instead the L version could be too smooth.
Good that as Lewm you are satisfied with and as you posted: +++ " lest I be accused of never meeting an MM/MI that I didn't like. " +++++
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stltrains: Axel has several of my cartridges, last week I emailed asking for the total amount of his works with four of those cartridges and I just receive an email from him telling me that today he will ship those cartridges.
The " funny " an unexpected thing is that he will ship with out payment because he does not gives the amount a bout. This confirm the very good Halcro's experiences with Axel.
I think you have to worry of nothing with this gentleman, as Nandric posted: he is now a very busy man.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: Interesting !!!!!?:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?6502-Refund-problem
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: Now that you mentioned, I bought the Sony XL44L that now is with Axel to an up-date. This cartridge was still made by Sony and its design ( motor ) is similar to the 88 that's a top performer, at least that's what I read on the 88.
What were your expweriences with your Sony XL88 D?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: The 88D was along the AT 1000 ( that shares same diamond cantilever/stylus. ) onew of the more expensive cartridges in Japan too, 150K yens in 1980.
The Sony XL44L came with elipthical stylus and I ask Axel to go with nude line contact. Btw, this 44 has lower output than the 88D: 0.3mv against 0.4mv on the 88D.
I just received up dated by Axel a Clearaudio Virtuoso Black Wood, the Goldring G800 and the Ortofon MC 3000MK2. I can't test it because my system still down but I think that in the next two weeks everything comes out again. I can't hear either my Dyna Karat Nova 13D and other " new " cartridges I have up dated.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " Dear nandric: I repeat, those integrated headshell designs were a fashion on those old times and in many ways more marketing that a scientific achievment.
Almost all the cartridge manufacturers of this kind of designs were tonearm manufacturers too: Technics, Audio Technica, FR/Ikeda, Yamaha, Sony, ADC, etc, etc.
Wonder where those integrated headshell designs performs the " better "?, you are right!: with its tonearm counterpart designed by the same cartridge manufacturer.
I owned several of those integrated headshell designs on those old times and I remember the USA distributors/sellers how they push to the integrated designs against its stand alone brothers, curios was that normally first appears the stand alone one and suddenly after that the integrated headshell design arrived and some " stupid " people like me goes through the integrated designs too!. At the end we owned two same model cartridges that means profits$$$ for the manufacturers: who cares?????
Japanese manufacturers does not cares about those " high end " tonearms with non removable headshell designs ( the Lewm argument. ) because almost all of them have on sale their own tonearm designs that were the " best " tonearm match. The integrated cartridge designs were on sale mainly in Asia, then Europe and in lesser way in America.
Marketing always has an important " weight " on audio item designs and in many cases with no clear audio quality parameters/factors as its foundation.
Btw, 80% of the sales on Ortofon/EMT integrated cartridge designs goes to Asia where today still exist a " cult " for that kind of sound.
I don't see that you and the other " proponents " of integrated headshell designs have wide experiences with this kind of cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
+++++++++++++++++
in the other side I don't posted nothing about" ++++++ but for you to state that 'modern' development of materials and knowledge has improved the art of cartridge design " +++++++
by the contarry I supported that the vintage designs are have great motors that improve with a today " touch ". One example on this was with my long nose Acutex where I own an original ones with only a " touched " VDH suspension , same model with a cantilever/stylus/suspension up grade and one in stock fashion. Well the best performer is the one with the up dated cantilever/stylus against the stock one and the suspension refreshed one. What I support came from my experiences and certaibnly I'm not contradictory on what I was and am supported in this thread. Now, as you and other people like me we are learning all the time and with this " learning " our each one way of thinking could change a bit. I'm hard sticky on the vintage cartridge motor designs.
+++++ " the days of the 'J' or 'S' shaped tonearms with detacheable headshells were already over with straight-arm designs with fixed headshells being regarded as 'de rigeur' in the high-end community..+++++++++++++""""
where in the high end community?, certainly not Asia. Even today Dynavector and Ikeda still build removable headshel tonearm designs and the best Japanese tonearms are/were on this kind of designs. Btw, japanese people are not greatly influenced on what happen in other/different high end communities.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric/Lewm/Henry: All of you posted that I'm contradictory, well I appreciate that you were more specifics because maybe I did not understand yet in specific in which subjects I'm trhough your posts.
Now, if in true I'm contradictory I can and have to accept it after I can analize what moves me what brings me to been contradictory.
I'm willing as always to accept critics about my " foundations " except when one person post that I'm lying.
The integrated headshell cartridge design subject is controversial as many other audio subjects and my take there is only that the same vintage cartridge model in stand alone fashion outperforms its integrated counterpart. In my " take " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions. I had this kind of experiences in the old times, especialy with AT cartridges. Unfortunately in those times I owned a different system and more important I did not care about tonearm/headshell/cartridge matching.
One of the cartridges I owned were the AT24 and its integrated counterpart AT25 and I can't remember big differences on it because the AT24 was mated with AT headshell and AT wires. The problem today is that in those vintage integrated designs we can't change nothing on the internal construction when its counterpart ( stand alone ) be mated with firt rate headshell wires and tested with several headshells till we find out the best match, the stand alone vintage cartridge design has many advantages over its integrated " sister ".
I would like to know if there are some contradictions here or why I'm wrong.
Yes, I have a strong foundation against integrated designs, I don't like its monolitic status: IMHO we all need and in specific the cartridge needs and ask for " alternatives " to shows at its best alternatives to be perfectly matched.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.
The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:
I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque. Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.
All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.
So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.
What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.
The analog " cross/croix " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it. I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date. Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music, R. |
|
I think I forgot at least one resonance circuit stage: where the TT is seated.
R. |
Dear friends: IMHO we can't takea tonearm like a stand alone audio item, tonearms are only a part of a very complex resonator circuit where that circuit is full of interrelationships between the different circuit stages, this makes very complicated the tonearm designs.
The intrinsic tonearm resonances/distortions are in " touch " with the other resonator stages just from start:
I think that all begin with the LP, turntable platter plate and the clamp ( when in use ) resonances in at least these ways: amplitud, level, main frequency and harmonics. Next stage belongs to the cartridge it self along cantilever/stylus/suspension/cartridge body/LP. From here goes to the headshell ( integrated design or not ) removable or fixed headshell. Independent on the tonearm/cartridge resonances due to the cartridge compliance and the tonearm effective mass exist a resonance stage in the circuit between the cartridge body/headshell/mount screws/mount level's torque. Then what Fleib posted between the removable headshell and the tonearm arm wand connector and from here goes through the stage between the arm wand resonances and the tonearm main bearing. Then to the bearing/arm pillar and from here to the tonearm arm mount mechanism and from here to the tonearm/TT arm mount.
All those circuit stages can change its relationship " levels " depending on build materials all through the audio items involved in the circuit and even additional or not damping at each stage by whole design.
So IMHO we can't attribute the whole " thing " only to one or two of those resonator circuit stages.
What makes more complex a tonearm design is that the designers do not know how their tonearms will be mated overall.
The analog " cross " are those mechanical resonances/distortions: terrible for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Only that people like more the resonances/distortions on the new " toys ", that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " that implies a less than rigid headshell/armtube " ++++
++++++ " Using a removable headshell you're much more likely to have vibrations remain in the headshell as they hit the headshell coupling. I have some arms with removable headshells, and I think this is true. IMO it's better to avoid additional resonance, retain greater arm rigidity, and allow the arm to dissipate mechanical energy. " +++++
the kind of resonances and its frequency level depnds mainly not only on how rigid is the coupling but the headshell build material and how resonate and how can dissipate it and not only through the tonearm.
This is something that we worked in deep through the whole design of our tonearm that now is finished. Our tonearm, even that is removable headshell ) does not shows what you states and that can happen with other tonearms that use different build material than our propietary one
Overall build material on tonearms are the main factors on that resonance issue, obviously along other design parameters but build materials makes a paramount and critical differences.
Always exist resonances/distortions on many kind and the success on any design IMHO is try to leave those resonances/distortions away of the frequency range our brain is more sensitive and where could cause more problems.
Tonearm as a whole audio item has a " pre-historic " status and there is a lot of land to improve its main functions. The tonearm as a whole IMHO is just a " kid " and needs to grow up faster in benefit of our hobby. IMHO there is no " last word " or do not writed yet that last word in tonearms so it is exciting to know that the best is forthcoming about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: +++++ " there is no way to support the most critical subject in the cartridge quality level performance: cartridge/headshell/headshell wires saying that the 30-40+ years old cartridge with integarted headshell are better that its stand alone versions with todays " technology " " ++++++
todays " technology " means: better cartridge/headshell wires, better wire connectors, better headshells and the posibility to choose the best match, etc, etc.
I think that maybe I don't make very precise my point: there is no generalization on that subject it is only on vintage samples against the stand alone vintage same model mounted with today " technology ".
About that additional joint to the tonearm in my case and as many other people we use direct wire/cable connection from the cartridge pin connectors to the Phonolinepreamp.
I posted:
+++++" Today we have several options on headshells, several options on mount screws, several options on headshell wires, several options on headshell wire connectors, several options to align the cartridge. Even some of us like to tame the cartridge " color " through the mount screws using different pressure on the screws/cartridge mounting to the headshell. " +++++
all this are advantages to the stand alone cartridge models due that help to attain the best that vintage cartridge can shows us.
++++++ " the only possibility I " see " that the integrated one could beats the stand alone " sister " is to change the integrated internal wires and after that find out the tonearm ideal match and even here the challenge could be strong because the stand alone one will be on similar whole set up conditions. " ++++
The theory behind that " rigidity " you bring on the subject maybe is more theory than a reality because if we can't hear it it is hard to know helps to detriment on sound quality. I made several experiments about with some of my tonearms: MS and Audiocraft and with my own tonearm self design and I can't say that rigidity makes a difference for the better.
Anyway, only an opinion/experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Audiopulse: My G800 was up dated with nude line contact on aluminum cantilever. I know that Dominic use the Ruby cantilever , when Axel received my Goldring I was tempted to order the ruby/saphyre cantilever but I decided to check before with the aluminum one and hear it to evaluate its quality performance level and from here decide to go or not for the ruby/saphyre one.
I ask Axel to up date the XL44L in the same way than the G800.
After test both carrtridges I will report here. To decide to go to a " better " up grade I want to know first if the carrtridge motor deserve it. I have high expectations on that can happen because both cartridges are very well regarded.
Orinaly I was decided to send the G800 to Dominic but due that I never heard the Goldring I prefered to " wait " and see how good in reality is the cartridge motor.
Now, if the Sony is as good as some persons experienced then I will go latter with the berylium/Gyger2 up date. Btw, now I'm trying to decide if I go with this top up date for my Astatic MF-300due that the 200 is IMHO an stellar performer: I really like the Astatic motor.
I can't help you about what I experienced with the G800 or the Sony because my system is still down.
I bought my G800 trusting on Dominic opinion so I'm waiting that even with the aluminum cantilever the cartridge can performs very good. I can't imagine why the G800 could not perform good with aluminum cantilever, we will see.
Regard and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " however when a statement is made that a principle in audio is superior to another, that statement should be demonstrable in some scientific manner? If it is claimed that a rigid headshell is better than a detachable one….this should be audible on any system…..not just one’s own? It cannot be logically valid that a statement is true but cannot be proved to be true? " +++++++
that's why many times is only theory but as I posted ( btw, I posted by 05-27-12 and because Agon does not posted I repeat it on 05-28. Something is happen there because if you read it is only today that Agon posted my post to Audiopulse that I writed and posted by 05-25-12!!! and to Dover on 05-26-12 ) the problem is that many times we are taking single theories for a single subject when as I pointed out the whole " thing " works as a resonator circuit where each stage on that resonator circuit has a direct and indirect relationship in between: any change in any of those stages ( inside the resonator circuit ) affect directly to the final " sound ".
It is " fun " for all of us to talk on this subject but our conclusions could be useless in some ways if we don't take or work on the whole resonator circuit.
IMHO our conclusions are " unfinished " ones and extremely difficult to prove it as you said.
IMHO we must to have a " mathematic's model " of that resonator circuit where all the parameters/factor with influence been on that model. This sounds good but I think very complex if we take in count all the parameters/factors invloved and its combinations because that model must include audio item build materials.
Whom's of us say: I take that " bull by its horns " ?. Here we have very brave contributors that can do it and that maybe as a " contribution task " some of this brave stand alone contributors can works togetter to achieve that resonator circuit model.
I'm just thinking in " high voice ".
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I think " that " could be a huge contribution to the whole audio community and not only to satisfy each one of us.
R. |
Dear Timeltel: The original 4000 D3 stylus description is: " miniature nude diamond with .1 mil tracing radius " 4 Dimensional ". " and with this cartridge the back plate is black, I own two of these cartridges.
The white back plate is the one with LAC stylus and is a newest " model/vintage " than the original. Empire LAC stylus was used on that D3 and further on the newer models as the 600 LAC and 750 Limited.
The latest D3 encarnation is the Gold one. Obviously all three models performs different and at least with my D3 sample I can't say is euphonic one, yes it is not an universal cartridge that performs the same on any tonearm but when well matched seems to me is near neutral. Set up is critical as with any other cartridge.
Anyway, in your cartridge sample: how can you know that the stylus is the LAC one and not the original one?.
Empire did so many changes through the time that is difficult to identify for sure about, even exist OEM ( " original " ) D3 stylus replacement but the question could be the same: LAC or original one?
I think that do that the cartridge motor was still the same the sound signature of the cartridge is near the same.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib/Halcro: I'm following your " talking " and IMHO there is no single answer that's right to the whole subject. I agree with both of you in different ways.
I think and support that everything we hear through our each one system can be measured, problem is to know exactly what and where to measure for the measured results can have a direct relationship with what we hear.
T&his IMHO is very complex starting for so many parameters/factors involved because we need " references " under absolutely control of what we can hear, those references are something as: LP tracks that we dominate, system resolution, system neutrality, skills and tools to make those measurements, our each one ears frequency response habilities, our each one sound bias and I can go on and on. Of course all that can do it but is a hard task.
We need to evaluate first which is our each one perception level on: THD, IMD, noise, tracking distortion and the like. Each one of us have different " experienced ears/brain " on those kind of " resonances/distortions ", even some of us can't distinguihs in between because some of us were not trained about.
I'm absolutely sure that as best each one of us are trained overall on those whole subjects as better the direct relationship on what we hear against those measurements.
Fleib, as always theories must to be proved because with out facts we can only speculate and in some ways is or could be useless.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear Timeltel: For several years and till today there is no single cartridge that does not benefit when we take out its stylus guard.
Your experiences with your 4000/D3 confirm about as the Ct0517 experience too. I think that today every one take out that stylus guard from every cartridge when on playback condition. This really works in favor of better quality performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro/Lewm: Yes, I agree that in many ways can be non-practical and almost always the cartruidge is safe with the stylus guard attached but honestly I don't care about, I don't like to sacrifice quality performance level for " been practical ".
I have almost all my carrtridges: the ones mounted and the ones on " the waiting line " with out stylus guards.
Yes, it is " a pain in the ass " and I had " suffer " some " accidents but at least I can live with in favor of the music.
On this subject the LOMC carrtridges has an advantage due that its stylus guard is " removable ", I think that only my Fulton comes with stylus guard and if I remember some Denon cartridges in the past came with non-removable stylus guard.
I can't remember but one of my MM/MI cartridges came with non-removable SG and I mean it: non-removable.
The stylus guard is a resonance/distortions focus as is the body of the remvoable MM/MI cartridge stylus ( that hold the cantilever/stylus. ).
Some MM/MI cartridges comes with " removable " stylus guard ( like the LOMC fashion. ) and with non-removable stylus ( as LOMC ones. ) and IMHO the designers did it for good reasons The Technics P100CMK4, AKG P100LE, B&O, ADC TRX, Clearaudio Virtuoso, etc, etc are some of that kind of cartridges. As Ct0517 in some of my cartridges I glued the stylus/cantilever body to the carrtridge body and this makes a difference for the better too.
I know that that coukld be non-practical but again if you cares about quality perfoprmance level then you have no choice and need to do it.
Anyway, almost all of you own several MM/MI cartridges then try to give you the opportunity to test about with one cartridge and then decide by your self.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: I read that you own an Alpha Genesis 1000 by Monster Cable and I can't remember if your sample is already with Axel for re-tip. Could you confirm about?
I just send to him my sample along my Accuphase AC-2 for re-tip ( cantilever/stylus. ) but I don't decide yet with kind of re-tip. Which do you choosed?
Thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear banquo363: I understand you own the Astatic MF-200 but I can't remember if you posted your experiences with this cartridge.
I think that could be interesting for many of us to add/share those MF-200 experinces here. Could you?: thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Very good information from your last post, thank's.
I, mainly, started my interest in the Genesis 1000 when I read one of your posts about, then I made some search on the net and decided to buy one and " see " what happen. With your post you confirmed all what I read it on the net.
In the other side, I was unaware that my Accuphase AC-2 designed by the same Genesis designer. I know very well the AC-2 and as you say " is very nice too ".
I'm thinking to " re-build " my AC-2 with berylium cantilever, I want to try something different on what I'm accustom with that cartridge, my take here is that this cartridge motror is worth to try in that " direction " we will see.
The cartridges are in the " road " to Axel and I don't know what could be his advice on the Genesis 1000, I have to wait.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dlaloum: Axel handle exotic materials but in rod shape. I asked him about tube cantilevers because my XL-44L came with and I wanted to have the same kind of cantilever but he told me he can't do it: no suppliers.
Fleib, only to confirm that the cantilever on the AC-2 is boron.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear banquo363: Yes, I agree with you as Dean_man and other Astatic MF-200: nothing short as a marvelous performer.
+++++ " The Astatic is the first cart to play through it without distortion all the while conveying in full detail the drama of the musical climax. The instruments retain their tone throughout these difficult passages. The 20ss can play without any obvious distortion as well but also without the fullness and presence of the Astatic. " +++++
I posted almost the same, the tracking MF-200 habilities is second to none not even the 20SS can eve it. If it is true that the 20SS makes a great job running the Telarc 1812 overture the MF-200 makes not a great job but a seamless one that no other cartridge I remember shares.
I posted several tiemes the critical importance on cartridge own tracking habilities as a characteriostic that always makes a difference for the better or worst. That the stylus stay always in the grooves makes the difference a paromouint differences. Tone, timing, focus, flow of the music are some distinctive factors that we can aware on cartridge differences on tracking habilities and this sole characteristic put the MF-200 in a different quality performance level than any other cartridge.
Due to its greatness IMHO is a must to have at least two samples of the MF-200.
Sooner or latter I will make an official Agon review, this cartridge deserve it.
Good to know you " discovery " the greatness of this Astatic.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lespier: Maybe in some time the AC-2 came with sapphire cantilever but mine came with a non-sapphire one or at least not a " pure " sapphire ", I mean that could be a sapphire cantilever with a cover of " something " that preclude to see the " sapphire " build material: transparent/clear.
Thanks to bring your link here. I will ask Axel when he has in his hands, at the end Axel handle sapphire cantilevers.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++++ " I would like to think that the choice of electronics was not the defining characteristic in extracting the worth of either cartridge technology... " +++++
I can't agree more with you. Downunder is stiucky to the idea of LOMC/tubes and MM/SS as its best couple. I discussed with him in the past about supporting what you posted.
I still support that the MM/MI tracking cartridge habilities makes a difference on quality performance for the better against its LOMC counterpart. Better tracking habilities means almost always lower a lot lower distortions that gives near neutral performance against more colored performance with higher distortions ina LOMC cartridge due to more problems on tracking cartridge habilities.
According to Downunder IMHO if one electronics kind of technology makes a better match to MM/MI or to LOMC then both electronics designs are wrong. A good electronics design must add the less and lose the less with absolutely accuracy to makes any cartridge kind to shows at its best and IMHO if one each kind of electronics can't do it then it is because failures somewhere in the electronics designs.
Seems to me there are no valid factros/parameters to say LOMC is matched better with tubes electronics but for the contary due to the very low output of MC cartridge the " natural " couple to a MC cartridge is the very low noise active high gain characteristic on the SS electronics, don't you think?
The other important part on what we think on the whole subject has to be with: how " euphonic " are biased our ears/brain?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: ++++ " ome of us are quite sensitive to high frequency ringing and compression in solid state phono stages. " +++++
again, this depends on the SS electronics design. IMHO any SS good design plain and simple does not shows that " ringing and comprression... " and if did then there are somewhere failures in its design but not because is a SS design.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear Fleib/Lespier: My Accuphase AC-2 is on the " road " to Axel so I have not on hand for the moment. This is my second sample where the first one alredy sold.
I think that Lespier is right and the AC-2 comes with tubular sapphire cantilever. My confusion was because in the AC-2 the cantilever is not transparent/clear as the ones in the B&O or ADC cartridges that comes with sapphire cantilevers too.
Now, I never had on hand the Genesis 1000 ( I send directly to Axel from the seller. ) that you say was designed/builded at the same place/designer than the AC-2, maybe I'm wrong but: the Genesis 1000 comes with Ruby ( similar as sapphire material. )cantilever? or is only a misunderstanding from my part.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " And if you ever do obtain one of the great MMs........remember that switching from it to a LOMC will always sound initially impressive. It's switching back the other way that the truth is revealed IMHO... " ++++
agree, but I think that Downunder really likes or likes more that what heposted the MM/MI alternative because he said here:
+++++ " however I have no desire to take these two mm's off the table. They sound superb. " ++++++
Btw, Downunder if you like the AT-25 then you have to find out the AT-24 that's its stand alone ( similar model. ) twin that gives you a better quality performance level. I'm with you on the greatness of the stand alone P100CMK4 really a must to have/experience. The problem with the Halcro MK3 is more on its headshell integrated design ( that degrade the cartridge signal. ) than on the MK3 version.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Banquo363: ++++" Due to its greatness IMHO is a must to have at least two samples of the MF-200. " ++++
my meaning there is to have the original MF-200 along a MF-300 ( same cartridge motor but lower price. ) where this one can be up-graded by Axel trying to achieve a next step level over the already great MF-200!!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Halcro: That " missing link " is really informative and in many ways confirm not only what J.Carr shared with us about aluminum cantilevers but what Fleib posted about Gyger stylus shape on an answer to Nandric.
Thank you to share with us this great " link ".
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: I think that maybe you can help me: as you know I bought a Dynavector Karat Nova 17D/13D? but now that I see it I can say for sure that the cantilever in my sample has not not only the 1.3mm length but neither 1.7mmm but a larger cantilever so my cartridge sample is not on original shape about.
I will send it to Axel to a modification and my question to you is what can I ask to Axel: to fix with a 1.7mm or 1.3mm cantilever or leave to Axel the choice about?
Thank you in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Downunder: +++++ " The Vitus, ARC, Aesthetix, Ypsilon, Boulder and Allnic do not offer capacitance loading. " +++++
with some of this phono stages my take is this:
some people buy expensive very expensive audio items as a status symbol more than with quality performance level on their minds. For these kind of people ( that I respect all of them. ) staus is their main priority and obviously status means expensive/top LOMC cartridges, for these people MM/MI cartridges is an " insult " only to mentioned and obviously the manufacturers take care on what the customers needs here.
If we take the Vitus phono stage that has a retail price of 60K only for the phono stage where you need other 60K for the line preamp: 120K!!!! we can confirm it through the M.Fremer review where he stated:
++++ " No alternate capacitive loadings are offered, but really—how many buyers will use an MM cartridge with a $60,000 phono preamp? " +++++
obviously that here exist a " stupid "/very low knowledge on the whole MM/MI subject and no one cares about.
This Vitus is IMHO a " shame " of 60K/120K product even for LOMC cartridges. How is possible that for that kind of money the inverse RIAA eq. deviation comes down from 200 hz at 0.15db and goes down to 20 hz at 0.75db !!!!!!!!!
and even that MF reviewed something like this: the greatness of the century over anything he heard ever. If a person can't detect that huge deviations then is only because is deaf or there is some " interest " down there with the audio item manufacturer.
Anyway, do you think that a Vitus owner cares on that specific RIAA subject?, certainly not what cares is that other people can see what he has/own.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: Yes, who cares about on a 60K audio item: he don't bought because of accuracy.
Was J.Atkinson whom made the measurements.
Again, yes there is noe xcuse for that $ 5.00 rubber-mat.
About the audio system owners that bought$$$$ mainly because status is one of the reasons why exist very expensive products that can't justify through quality performance level those very high prices.
When I started to bought " dozens " of LOMC cartridges my primary target is to have only the top ( high price ) cartridge models does not cares how good or not were. Then I learned but I invest a lot of money to learn.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends:That Altair cartridge bring me again something that in some ways I'm worried about, I read that the playback time of the stylus is around 15,000 hours along this in my Allaerts the designer support that the stylus can run for 10,000 hours.
First than all I don't understand how these cartridge builders can attest that long life for the cartridge stylus, I mean: how can they been so sure to write/guarantee that to their customers? how? because no one explained that.
But what really worried me is ( in those cartridges or in any other cartridge. ): for how many hours a cartridge can or coudl performs in similar way ( after settle down from new status. ) as when " new ". This is: when the stylus wear shows or are we aware that the quality performance level changed from its original performance level? and I dfon't mean when that stylus wear is obvious but when it is not.
My take here with non scientific facts is that due to how are recorded the signal in the LP grooves ( imperfections between other things. ) and the so " fragile " cartridge set up especialy that tiny stylus tip every single microscopic stylus tip wearing contribute to degrade the quality performance level through higher distortions of every type.
Many times we are not aware of that because our ears goes equalized " time to time " ( day by day ) and we don't noted the tiny quality performance changes till due to that wearing is obvious.
i WAS THINKING ABOUT BY SOME TIME NOW BECAUSE i THINK THAT THE UP DATE THAT i WAS DOING TO EACH ONE OF MY VINTAGE CARTRIDGES THROUGH Axel/VdH and the like and the improvement that I always achieved with all the cartridges was not only because suspension refresh or cantilever but due ( too ) to the new stylus tip against the wearing that any those vintage cartridges " shows " it that degraded the cartridge signal. Almost all those vintage cartridges we own are second hand that means ( even if the seller said the contray ) that stylus tip has some kind of wearing that affect the habilitie of what that stylus tip can " read " from the grooves.
I think that should be more important to have from the cartridge designers/builders not how many hours can play the stylus: 15K-10K or 2K, but how many hours can play before ( in a high resolution system. ) we can be aware of quality performance changes even if after that we can go on with that carrtridge having a " decent " performance.
Am I wrong? what do you think?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: Today Axel received my Genesis 1000 and we will see if he can make the up date. I mean " if he can " because you told me that seems that the cartridge " maybe " can't be opened.
Anyway, Axel will tell us about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Timeltel: That Grace is " unknow " because never riched America but in its times was its top of the line.
A little history here from the information I have:
1978 was launched the F8s, lattest the F8-V. 1979 came the MC SF-100 and integrated headshell design and then the F9s. Latter in 1984 came what Grace named Level II with 8 models and then in 1985 came the F14s series with 10 models.
I have some of its specs but is very long to writed here.
I don't think that one of our Grace F9s Axel's re-tipped can be beated by that F14 you are talking about, of course I can't be sure but I doubt seriously.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |