Dear friends: Speaking of our audio/music hobby and now that the 2012 is just at the end and looking for what happened about I can tell that with out doubt this one was and is my best audio year I can remember. Of course because I " walked " throught with the best persons I could that where all and each one of you. I learned a lot and enjoyed any single post in this thread and other threads from you Agoner's.
In the other side I never imagine when this 2012 started that I could ( trhotugh it. ) achieve the quality level performance that I'm enjoying in my audio system, I just can't even dream that this could and can happen because at the begin of this year the system performance level was IMHO really good and IMHO too nearest to the top as ever.
Right now, I enjoy the music at other level and today I know for sure that exist a lot more information in those grooves that what we normally think.
To appreciate that we only have to work in the whole audio system and I mean in each one and all the links that conforms the complex audio system chain with out forget the room/system relationship and with out forget that the live music is always an excellent reference point to any audio system evaluations.
I'm sure that the kind of experiences I had and have this year were and are similar of what you had and have too.
We have to be congratulated for that!!!°!°!!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm/Dover/Richardkrebs/Frogman/friends:
First than all I respect your opinions that I agree/disagree on the TT/plynt subject.
For months/years I posted several times that no one can design/build the " perfect " TT ( obviously plynt inclusive. ) till understand that the TT can't be designed as a stand alone unit.
IMHO the TT must be designed around the LP/cartridge needs. All the TT and after market plynths ( IMHO ) were and are designed with not only no scientifc foundations but with out precise and specific LP/cartridge targets.
The use of Fourier analysys or other maths tools means almost nothing till we not have that precise and specific LP/cartridge targets to from here start the TT design that can fulfil those specific targets.
IMHO till today I never read/see/heard or the like no one no site/place/designer that told us ( customers ) that his TT design fulfil the specific LP/cartridge needs: NO ONE.
To say that we need a well damped TT, a fast disipation build materials, a low resonance design and the like means nothing till we know for example:
which kind of resonances/distortions/vibrations ( generated through the whole TT design ), at which frequency range and amplitude have an influence in the /LP/cartridge signal degradation? which kind of degradation/coloration could we hear if we don't " tame " those r/d/v? how can we " tame "/disappear those r/d/v?
this simple/plain example has several alternatives/answers almost an infinite number where independent of maths modeling ( that can't tell me how can we hear it: music " color " presentation. )we ( the designers ) must to hear to confirm or not the maths modeling results and this means to have a work team where some of their members have to build TT protoype after TT prototype till we even what the math model said it with what we heard!!!!!
But ( always exist this: " but ". ) that: " we must to hear... " means that we need a " perfect " audio system to make all those tests, we need it along determinated references to make those comparisons.
Gentlemans, the answers and solution to that " perfect " TT certainly is not a stand alone one man task even if this man is " Newton " with top Universities below his " command ".
IMHO, to make/design that " perfect " TT we need a team work full of knowledge persons experts in different areas and obviously with different proved skills. We need experts in live music, experts in reproduced sound, experts on audio systems, experts on LP/cartridge relationship, experts on maths modeling and maths tools, experts on build materials, experts on vibration control/transmision, etc, etc, etc.
Who can do it?, please name it. With all respect: any one of the today and vintage TT designs or TT plynth designs as Lewm or Porter or any one of us?
I know that almost all of us want to improve the quality performance level of what we are hearing at home but almost all of us are doing that with out specific targets and many times we make changes almost at random where sometimes works and many times does not works. We have not a scientific method.
Today, I decided ( example ) to change fuses and maybe tomorrow I will change speakers position and latteron room treatment changes and we all did and do this with foundation in our each one experiences and what we like. Yes, we have some range of advance but normally is not enough to be there.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: First than all: have a good audio/music time in 2013.!
Now, it is obvious that you and me are wide different, especially our each one specific home system audio item evaluation method and something extremely important: the years of training in that SEM.
Till today and trough the years that SEM suffer only small changes, mainly on the LP tracks/grooves added or deleted. It does not matters what I'm evaluating always the evaluation pass through the SEM that's is almost unalterable.
I don't care about the kind of music ( obviously I care, but???? ) what I care is how those 10 seconds of sound/music sounded.
I know for sure exactly what to look for on each single trcak/groove, I know exactly how every single tick/pop and the like sounds in each single of the tracks that are on the SEM and I could by the differences on the sound on those clicks how that item could performs: believe or not.
Not only I know what to look for during the playback evaluation but against my references/targets.
Maybe your SEM is a lot better than mine but I can tell you something: my training an aware SEM level of what hapen down there is almost " perfect " and in this regards at least at the same level than your if not over you.
My SEM is an infalible one? certainly not but in the last 10 years it never fails, not a single time. Could be and exist a better SEM ( maybe the one from you )?, certainly yes but the one I use is the one that I trust and that I know with my " ears/eyes " close.
All the time and over time my " first impressions " are confirmed through the months coming and through tests against what was changed ( fuses or whatever. ).
I have a so high command on my SEM ( thak's to my in deep training on it. ) that I can tell you if the " error/problem " we are hearing ( in an evaluation. ) comes from a 0.2mm of erron on overhang against .5mm on VTA. Maybe you could be more accurate but for me its ok with what I have.
I can tell you that through the time my SEM is a great and the best tool I found out to evaluate audio systems items, not only in my system but in any system. Some of the persons that I meet at their places in USA are witness of what I'm telling here. I can name it if you want and I can give you their phone for you can talk about.
P.Barber?, whom cares: this is not the reason why those grooves are part of my SEM but hwta those grooves telling me about: accuracy, distortion level, tracking habilities, colorations, dynamics, inner detail, music power, music presentation, tone color, neutrality and the like.
++++ " but IMO you will never get anywhere.... " ++++++
maybe not but: whom really knows but me?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman/Nandric: This is what I posted to Don in the page ( I think ) 178/177 about the 981s:
+++++++ " The 981 specs on the operation manual say that all the 981 came with this values: DC resistance 850 ohms and Inductance 450 mH. Well, my 981 calibrated cartridge comes with this values that are in the cartridge calibration chart signed by the man that made the cartridge calibration: DC resistance 616 ohms and Inductance 248 mH. Obviously that that cartridge calibration gives real advantages against no cartridge calibration. " ++++++ output: 0.92mv
in the other side my samples ( 981 and XVS5000 stylus replacement ), both are MK2 generation. Better than the MK1?, who knows.
Nandric, just enjoy it.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: Do it a favor and make that your post be worth up. Right now you have nothing on hand " against " my SR20 fuse experienced statements I posted, so IMHO what you posted has no sense to me.
Make your work/job and test the SR20s in your system and then with your first hand experiences come back and post your experiences, I'm sure that you could be extremely happy to post here something like this:
++++ " Raul your SR20 statements are plain wrong and the worst fuses Itested, those SR fuses are a " piece of cheat " ++++++
and of course telling why the SR20s are that kind of " animal ".
Till you have a self SR20 experiences you have nothing on hand.
Anyway, your opinions are always welcomed.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: I think that whom can give you/us a " definitive " answers about the Stanton subject should be Richard the author of the Stanton's bible.
We all appreciated if you could contact him on the subject through the lencoheaven forum/site.
My " take " on what you own and what I own ( 981 calibrated ones. ) is that are the same or performs the same but can't be sure till we can compare it.
Btw, I agree with you about that " hand selected " as AT/Signet ones.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: ++++++ " that we have radically different preferences, anyway. (Yet, surprisingly, we do agree on some things, as well.) " +++++
not really, we have more in common preferences than differences.
IMHO the speakers in an audio system always makes a difference: main differences on overall audio system quality performance level/system " colorations ". Well, my friend Guillermo bought his big Sound Lab speakers because were the speakers that sounded " similar " to my system sound presentation. So, I know you and me are less diferent that what you think.
Regrads and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: If it is true that lower inductance values as resistance could help IMHO it is true that the differences on the values we are talking here are not so big for some of us could hear differences on performance ( of course some of us could hear it. ) because our ears or because not enough system resolution. Anyway, you already know: those inductance/resistance values have nothing to " see " with the cartridge stylus. When we are talking about: " hand selected " this means not only the best stylus finished but the best motor too.
Regarding SRA this set up is system dependent: cartridge/tonearm/TT/phono stage/etc/etc.
Now, it is extremely more easy to change SRA through the tonearm self mechanism that at the headshell becuase here tiny changes could make to big SRA changes.
My AKG P100 has SRA set up mechanism in the cartridge it self and you know what?: I prefer to use it at the tonearm, is more " user friendly " but is up to you.
Nandric, enjoy your 981, you are already prepared to achieve the best from that cartridge.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " In the unlikely event that you rise above preconceptions and recognise the superiority of the LZ, a..." +++++
in this thread and years before came the justified Stanton/Pickering today " fever " I posted ( and if I remember years even before in other thread. ) not only my preference for the 981 H against the L version but why. Today an after I bought ( again ) both versions that opinion is confirmed ( by a tiny tiny hair. I can live happy with either. ) but I would like that you can share with us your first hand today experiences with both cartridges and the differences you appreciated that makes your preference on the L version, I'm really interested about because maybe I'm missing something about.
Thank you in advance.
Btw, believe it or not when I gave/give/express an opinion always was and is determined by performance only. Expectations are almost always part of the pre-test/before test evaluation and is part of the " fun " but in my case never determine my final opinion. You can be sure about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Fleib: +++++ " Although I don't own an HZ, it didn't seem to have the same level of neutrality. I realize this answer isn't definitive,.... " +++++
if you resd my post I asked for a today first hand experiences with both 981 versions for we can compare each other experiences and try to think what I'm missing or what you are missing if we missed something at all.
The subject is not which one is right or has reason but try to be nearest a common answers that can help to other members.
So, I can't argue about in that regards comparison.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear In_shore: +++++ " however no one from the nude thread went as far as trying their table into a panzerholz plinth,....no one. " ++++
me neither but let me to share other plinth experiences with Denons and SP10s:
several years ago ( way before any one talked about naked TT. ) I made some tests on my Denons ( DP80/75. ) that originally came in the Denon wood plinths: I use it both, the solid wood one and the wood/fragments ( I can't remember the name in english. ).
After this I use it a natural marble and onyx stones as a TT plinth seated on AT pneumatic footers. Quality sound performance improves by a wide margin.
After this I seated ( a top the marble and onyx plinths. ) both Denons on three tiptoes like. So the TT was " anchored " by the tip toes to the plint. Here the whole plinth in fact fuctioned like a " gigant " ( 40kgs. ) arm board.
Again, the reward was a significant improvement. Then I gone " naked " sitting the Denons directly to pneumatic footers but still using the stone arm boards.
The reward this time was again an improvement over the plinthed " versions ".
Same happened with the SP10s.
In both cases, Denon/Technics, the quality performance level is extremely sensitive of in which kind footers ( the ones where the TTs are seated directly. ) the TT is directly seated.
I made several tests about with stand alone footers and with blended/combination of more than one kind of footers and in my case with my TTs nothing I test outperformed and outperforms the TT seated directly on those AT pneumatic footers.
Tip toes like are not very good for that job but those were my experiences where other persons could have different experiences.
An example of one experice I had is this:
my two belt drive Acoustic Signature TTs are seated directly on inverted tip toes that are seated directly to AT pneumatic footers. With this TTs that solution works marvelous and because of that I tested with the DD TTs and guess what?: it does not works at all, very deficient. Why? I don't care but does not works.
Of course that in audio does not exist " absolute " and exist the posibilities that a plinthed TT at its best could beats a naked one at its best. By this time and with my DD TT I think that the naked fashion is extremely hard to beat with a today " technology " used on plinths.
The plinth issue per se is not only a complex one but an " enterprise " a serious one for any one that want to go in deep with a " perfect " design.
Certainly I'm not ready to do it not even the knowledge level to do it so in the meantime that appears that " perfect " plinth I have to stay with the DD TT naked version: IMHO makes less harm.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Btw, when I propose the TT naked version people " laugh " of that idea/experience and no one took it in count.
Latter on Halcro and a few audiophiles given a try and they like it.
DD naked fashion is only an alternative that for some it works and for others like you does not works.
Anyway a different and " new " experience.
R. |
Dear Dover: I agree and that's exactly what Lewm posted time ago.
In my set up I use the same footers for the TT and tonearm and same plattform even that I know it is not the ideal/perfect way but that's my alternative that till today worked fine for me.
Of course that I would like to have a good looking plinth that can works as good the naked fashion or even that beats it.
I'm not against the plinth per se, it is only that what exist around IMHO does not fulfil the targets I already achieved. No, I did not try all the plinths around and certainly I can't do it. I will wait for a better alternative.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stanton's friends: Tes, I remember that when Dgarretson ( I think ) posted that the 981LZ was on the dark side I agree with him. Now what means " dark " to each one of us?, maybe different things.
For me a cartridge with a " dark " sound/presentation could be a very good quality performer because " dark " for me does not means dull or cold or anlitycal or with out soundstage or with out dynamics and so on.
Dark for me is a different tone color in a cartridge performance in the same way that one violin can have a dark sound against other that's more " alive ". Which one is right?: both, with different tone color. No two violins sounds the same with the same tone color as no two pianos sound exactly the same.
So, for me dark is not an atribute that diminish an audio item in any way.
Said it and IMHO both calibrated 981s: the LZ and HZ, are neutral cartridges and both very good performers ( better than the non-calibrated ones?, maybe. ).
Why I prefer the HZ version?: the HZ has not only a litle better definition on the first attack/transients that permit to hear the fundamental and harmonics with " life-like " sound where we are aware of the precise sound of the instrument and how been " touched " by the player.
This characterisitc gives the HZ a better feeling of dynamics with a more alive tone color nearest to the natural agresiveness that has the live instrument/music where the LZ diminish a litle this regards. This gives the HZ the feeling to be more transparent and with more aplomb at the high frequencies but at the other end of the frequency that little more " transparent and transients handling and dynamics " gives a better frame to the bass where you can hear better definition here too.
I runned both cartridges in the Sony PUA-237 seated in my naked Denon DP-75 and as almost always the HZ seen 100kohms along 350pf additional to the cable capacitance, the LZ 100 ohms that was where I feel and hear that in my system performs the better.
Btw, I tested both cartridges in other tonearms and the best match ( other that my own design. ) was and is the Sony PUA-237, very good tonearm indeed.
Lewm, both cartridges already " broken ". Other consideration here is that my HZ runs with the Pickering XSV 5000 MK2 stylus replacement that between other things fits ( stay in place with out loose. ) better than the original one.
As I already posted I can live with both but if I have to choose then I take the calibrated HZ version and over both the: Precept 440, my experiences on it latter on.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Acman3: Yes, there are differences in between the 981s.
Now, what really means " calibrated " for Stanton:
the cartridges ( 981s calibrated. ) comes with a chart od calibration values on a few cartridge parameters and what at the end means that calibrated cartridge is that Stanton guarentee that if we follow exactly the set up parameters in that calibratioon chart we can achieve the frequncy response and frequency response deviations at 5k,10k,15k and 20khz and its tracking habilities at the VTF value in the chart as the channel separation.
With a non-calibrated cartridge the specs are only that " desired " specs but Stanton can't guarantee that those specs can be achieved when in the calibrated one are achieved. Of course that at random a non-calibrated one could achieve those Stanton specs but we can't be sure.
In the other side the cartridge specs performance depends not only on that calibration but on our each one habilities to set up in precise way the cartridge. The other thing is that Stanton say nothing about how the make that calibration, I mean: which test record, which tonearm, VTA/SRA, etc, etc.
What really we have to do is to listed, enjoy and have fun with.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: I don't know what you mean with " measurements ". For what I know no one has a complete analysis with specific measurements on that regard.
I already posted in other thread ( I can't remember if I posted in thios thread too. Maybe????) that I made " measurements " on that stylus drag in an empiric way where I tested 5-6 different cartridges with 4-5 different LP tracks and choosing those tracks at the outer grooves, center and inner grooves and with 2-3 different tonearms.
Those cartridges differ mainly on VTF and stylus shape.
I found out that not only the grooves recorded velocity has an influence but stylus shape/VTF and the place/point where the stylus is running.
I have all what I measured somewhere. I did it with the TT motor ( I use it BD one. ) off. What mean I?: with the TT switched on I switched off and read the time that took the platter to stop.
I took several days of tests only to be sure that the switch off been exactly at the time the stylus is in the groove and to stop the wtaxch exactly when the platter stop ( when swith the motor off this must be matched to the watch start to run. ).
Now, on dynamic basis and either DD and BD TTs I own I can't detected any single sound performance deviation even with three stylus in the grooves at the same time. Maybe my ears are not so sensitive as other people ears or I'm unaware on what to hear.
The stylus drag issue is already analized for many of us " amateurs " in different threads ( right now is happening in other thread. ) with no useful conclusions. I know that in the future there will be another threads where could be analyzed once again and for me that I'm not a TT designer is a useless exercise that help me in anything other than " curiosity ".
As with other analog subjects the stylus drag always was discussed with out take all the factors/parameters involved and this fact makes more useless any discusion about.
IMHO the TT designers are the ones that could come here and express their proved and measured ( if any ) experiences on that subject. Seems to me that no one TT designer ever made/makes an in deep scientific research about. So why we " amateurs " have to do it with out the knowledge and skills level asked for that complicated task. Makes no sense to me.
Example: how can be useful for you to know more on the subject when you can't change your TT characteristics to deal or improve about? and even if you can: which kind of improvement can you achieve and if you or any one could hear that improvement?
Useless.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: If I remember some one of you ask in " desperate " way for this tonearm and here it is in new condition:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Audio-Technica-AT1010-Tonearm-NOS-/221164946666?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D4675948822589863993%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D221164946666%26
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric/Halcro/Dover: Stylus drag exist, period.
Now, about that Transrotor TT an its platter inertia we have to remember that the platter moves around a TT bearing so here could be a problem too.
To really evaluate in numbers the consequences on that stylus drag on an ideal TT we have to take not only all the factors/parameters involved that we mentioned here and in other threads but I know exist other additional ones tha have to take in count as LP warps ( for example. ) because this warps makes changes in VTF changes even that are of different level depending not only the tonearm used but if the tonearm is running in static balances or dynamic balanced fashion. In the other side and everything the same we have to consider too the onw cartridge tracking habilities.
Yes, this is not rocket science but IMHO involve several parameters that has influence in the whole subject and first than all we have to identify.
Now, at the end and if we can get scientific/math answers we need something additional: how those " numbers " affect what we are hearing? can we hear something? which the reference to compare? and so on.
I think that right now even the " best " guys as Tonywinsc,Richardkrebs, Mosin or our Dover have on hand only part of the " subject " and I think with no reference to compare at the end because I think that till today does not exist the ideal/perfect TT that is immune to stylus drag.
As I said: how can we be aware of that stylus drag on what we are hearing?, I posted that even with three cartridges at the same time I can't discern nothing on the perceived sound against only one stylus drag cartridge. Obviously I have no training on this subject and maybe I have to search about and maybe a good point to start to know more or less that stylus drag sound is to make several tests ( with a method according to. ) comparing one cartridge against three cartridges and against two cartridges looking for clear and precise differences . I don't know I'm only thinking on " high voice ".
Maybe I could try or not because in reality that could be a time consuming and can't help me to improve my system quality performance. As I said that is main target for TT designers.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: As you know load impedance with low output cartridges is critical. I tested values above 100R and yes ( as always happen with this kind of cartridge designs. ) we perceived a little less darkness but in my case I don't like it the trade-of at the other frequency extreme.
I like a " perfect " tonal balance ( that even I don't know if really exist in the recording. ) and for me the foundation of the music in a reproduction music in a home system belongs to the bass management and the calibrated 981LZ performs better in this regards at 100R with out sacrifice at the other end. As I said dark is only a " color " and there are different level/tones of that dark/color.
In the other side I hope that when you made it the impedance 981 comparisons you made it with even volume in both cases because the SPL at 100R is lower than at 1k and you know that our ears perceive small differenecs on SPL but here is very important because we are making comparisons.
Anyway, I think that we really agree in the main subject about along the other Stanton's lovers.
Btw, I want to find time to test my Pickering TL4S, could be interesting.
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " Wether that effect is audible or important enough to any one listener is another story " ++++
that's the point. For me IF is AUDIBLE then is IMPORTANT but till today I never read anywhere a single " voice " that related how he heard/identified that stylus drag and how he knows/knew that what he heard was because stylus drag it self and no for other " factors ". How could he aisle the stylus drag " fact " from the whole playback environment?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear Timeltel: Why do you need a plinth with the JVC TT71. I tested on naked way ( and with its own plint: wood participle board. ) and IMHO performs even better than his big brothers and tiny below the Denons. Of course is up to you, as always.
For the same money for the AT1010 you can get two tonearms that IMHO outperform the 1010: Sony PUA237 and JVC U245, in both cases you can find out versions of the same tonearms with longer effective lengt. I don't have any experiences with the longer tonearm versions but what these two tonearms are showing handling MM/MI/LOMC cartridges is just fine.
I own yout Technics and the EPA-100, today I'm in favor of the SONY and JVC.
Of course are only additional alternatives.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Stanton: Something curious: in the calibartion chart the numbers were achieved with a VTF: 1.0grs but on the traking capability number that states: 100 microns ( fabolous number. ) that number was achieved not at 1.0grs in VTF but at: 1.25grs.
I wonder if the other numbers could change at this higher VTF, on sound performance improved a little on detail/definition but something that I had to test again and again to be sure about.
My sample are MK2 ( even the Pickering stylus. ), which yours?
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: My mistake. My JVC is the UA-7045 and as you said a lovely looking " guy ":
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/ua-7045.shtml
the other JVC I'm aware is the UA-7082 that's a long version.
If you can try tp find the Sony PUA-237, very good and great with LOMC cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: I repeat, my main target on sound reproduction is that the bass management be " spot on " and in my system at 100R that target is achieved in better way. That's all.
The darkness on the cartridge is only a different " color " or shade of color than the one in the HZ version.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: +++++ " states many times in that handbook NOT to mix styli with various bodies. He says you will get music, but it will not be what was intended by the disigner of the cartridge. " +++++
if you read trhough this thread and otehr threads that was exactly what I always supported, that was always my advise, but this always is not for ever.
Through the time and due to experiences on re-tipping my cartridges through VDH first and latter on Axel I changed my mind because I took in count that I could and can have serious improvements if I go against my way of thinking on this regard. The time gives me the precise answer and confirms that I was wrong but not only I experienced about but several Agoners inside this thread and other threads already experienced the same that I experienced.
That's why exist SS or Axel and many other re-tippers.
That statement I learned through the AHEE but not all what the AHEE teach to us is right an unbiased.
Griffithds, as me all of you day by day are growing up and learning " things " for the better or bad and with this kind of learning all of us are enriching our audio/system knowledge in favor of MUSIC.
I just received from Axel my Lira Clavis DaCapo and it's a new formidable LOMC cartridge a lot lot better than the original. When time permit I will speak on this Lyra re-tipped one that confirm ( once again. ) that that statement, AHEE and me were wrong.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: I forgot. What I posted has to take it as an opinion based on precise experiences and that's all. It is not a rule.
What if I was owner of the Lyra Atlas or the Ortofon Anna or other new top dog? Will I send it to any of the existen re-tippers?, maybe not.
A today premium cartridge invlove not only the designer in deep effort to achieve pre-determined targets but those targets were and are achieved b by the design, parts selections and execution to taht design as the very especial cartridge voicing to match that designer targets.
With vintage cartridges or not so " today " top ones I will look to a re-tipper.
Btw, froma few months now I'm buying LOMC cartridges and for some of them I'm buying a second cartridge sample.
For example, my original Spectral cartridge that performs so great I bought a second sample that I send to Axel to re-tip for compare it to the original one. I already made it this with other LOMC cartridges that es exactly what I did and I styll do with MM/MI cartridges where IMHO is worth to do it.
About the Goldring G800 your experiences with is exactly what the UK re-tipper told me and that's why I bought 3-4 samples on it and why I higly recomend it.
About the 981HZSMK2 maybe you missed my post about. Yes, I compare the Stanton original stylus against the Pickering 5000MK2 and I posted that this Pickering stylus replacement was and is better by a not so small margin especially on tracking distortion/habilities.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: The Precept experiences have to wait because I just receive in amint condition a Glanz MFG-71L that was the top of the line and in theory " similar " to the Astatic MF-100 that is a well regarded cartridge by its owners including me.
In the Glanz thread and maybe in other thread too ( I can't remember if in this one either. ) I have a serious disagreement/controversy with the Glanz against the Astatic ones and against the integrated headshell Glanz versions against the stand alone version as the one I'm talking about.
That controversy was so serious that the other person involved in that controversy implied that I was lied.
So, time to leave clear the " old " Glanz/Astatic controversy by my self and no better way that with the top Glanz ( stand alone version ) " dog ". We will see, normally " the time always put things in the right place where belongs".
Btw, maybe not many of you are interested about and I say this because almost no one took in count seriously the Astatic similar cartridges that at least the MF-100 and the MF-200 IMHO are top performers. I insist, if you look somewhere any of these Astatic cartridges my advise is: buy it with no ask.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover: Thank's for your offer but IMHO in all cases the best arbitrate almost always are each one of us.
Imagine that all the cartridge comparisons in this thread could needs an arbitrate!!!!!
Fortunately things in audio are not so complicated as to have an arbitrate, at least for now and at least with persons that are not audio " rockies ".
What I can do is to put on sale for you the cartridge that was outperformed after my comparison. Just tell me.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear nandric: Appreciated. Now, that Magic Diamond: well in the past in a few Agon threads the Magic Diamond was under " deep " scrutiny. I had the opportunity to heard it in one of my trips to great Agon friends home places in USA ( J.Galbraith. whom own a top system: Walker TT between other items. ).
Sounds very good. Things happen that the Magic Diamomnd used the Denon-103 " platform " and from there born the cartridge with several designer modifications.
The debate about was " serious " because the MD owners refused to belive that Denon procedence. At the end was proved that in fact the original procedence was Denon even that what we read on the net by the designer it self could tell something different.
Anyway, Denon procedence ( I think there is nothing wrong with this. ) or not the MD is very good performer and I know you will be satisfied with.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: +++++ " Raul is not willing to actually share carts but only his opinion about them. ... " +++++
you are right but there are some reasons about that I would like to explain:
- first almost all those cartridges are vintage ones. - the more valuable are very and some extremely hard to find out. - I live in México that's far away from almost all of you. Shipping both ways has an inherent risck.
in the other side and even that all of us really take care about the cartridge fragility even on cartridge set up/handling time to time some of us have " accidents ".
My latest one was two weeks ago with my NOS Stanton 981HZSMK2!!!!!! and in the past I can remember: Grace Ruby, four times ( yes, four times. ) one of my Colibris, one of the AKG P100, At 160, At 180, Technics P100CMK4 and I can go on and on.
It is a " pain in the ass " to work in the middle of ten tonearms/cartridges where your body is surrounded by those delicate items: when is not one finger is your arm or the sweter you dress or even your head. I take care a lot on each one of the cartridges but almost all days I'm doing something around the analog rig system so the probabilities of an accident are higher that when you have only one-two tonearm/cartridges at the same time.
Not only you offer me to send me one of your value treasures but other Agoners too and in all cases I refuse to accept not only because is a critical responsability for my self but to protect those vintage treasures.
If I remember was you whom posted something like this: " a cartridge is like my wife, I don't borrow she to any one ".
Many times and even if we can find out again one sample of a vintage cartridge maybe its quality performance ( due to its vintage status. ) been poorer than the first sample. I experienced this more than once.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Dear Audiopulse: Just a good luck and patience.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim; You are right, your Astatic is the " losted link " and no one can find out. Lucky you are!
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Dear Nandric: This is one of the MD threads I refered to:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1174270052&read&keyw&zzspu
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: There were and are cartridge designers that supported and still support spherical stylus shape.
Fulton was one of them I own one of his models that's a LOMC that from its specs goes on frequency response up to 50khz and performs really good.
Stylus shape is very important in a cartridge designs but only a part in the whole design.
I own the Denon 103 and is an average performer, many persons said that for its price is a great performer.
I don't know what Andreoli made with that 103 platform but I heard it and is a lot better than the 103. IMHO those persons that affirm that the performance on both cartridges is similar I think ( with all respect ) their audio systems has no adequate resolution for or their ears are " closed ".
About the MD price: what do you think on the 15K+ Koetsu Coralstone or other " crazy " prices on cartridges that IMHO has no quality performance justification??
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Dover: Yes, L.Walker supported that MD cartridge. The time I heard it was at a meeting of an audio association in Philadelphia when I was invited ( Spencer Banks was the persons that I contacted, a very good Agon friend as JG and many others. ) to show our self design Essential 3160 phonolinepreamp.
In that meeting attended around 25 persons including L.Walker and the meeting was at J.Galbraith. During the listening hours we were listening to the MD cartridge and no one had any single compliant about its quality sound performance level.
The MD was mounted in the Walker/tonearm rig, Essential 3160 and Kharma loudspeakers. L.Walker used that MD in his system and my friend J.Galbraith bought it because the Lloyd advise.
After that thread I linked ( is the same that Lewm linked latter on. ) there were posts on other threads where in fact the MD platform came from the 103. As I already told: what's wrong with? who cares?, the cartridge performance is very good. The merit of the MD is that Andreoli had very precise and specific targets on his design and I yhink he achieved with the MD.
IMHO,103 platform or not is not important.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lharasim: If you are willing to put on sale to me then I accept your offer, just email me: rauliruegas@hotmail.com
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Lewm: No, I was not and certainly I'm not up set because any of you comments.
You already know me and sometimes through what I post persons could think I was upset/angry but really not.
Now, I don't know how that MD sounds today but with our today systems improved I think that the MD performance could be improved of what I heard the first time.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Astatic/Glanz's friends: Well, I think I finished with the Astatic/Glanz " tiny shoot out ".
Btw, Griffithds that Glanz MFG 71L that you saw on ebay is the one I bought and according with my experiences with IMHO you was right when decided not bid in that auction.
The Glanz is similar to the Astatic one ( it is obvious: Glanz the former and then Astatic bought the patents to build its cartridges. ). The MF-100 is in this cartridge series the top of the line and the MFG 71L the top of Glanz series line.
If we see it both phisically are identical in cartridge body shape and its stylus are compatible each to the other even with the Astatic MF-200.
My take with these cartridges is that if exist any design/build differences that came as an improvement in the Astatic that was the latter cartridge design. I don't want to go inside that because could be only speculations.
The Glanz performs almost the same as the MF-100 but you can heard ( at the begin when you are listening for the first time the Glanz. ) more " transparency " on its performance but along my test method I took in count that is not only no more transparent but that transparent characteristic is only due that the bass management is non adequate against the MF-100. In the Glanz the bass is " slim " with no weight and precision as in the MF-100/200. Both cartridges are more alike than different but I can't found out no single sign where the Glanz beats the Astatic ones: 100/200.
I use it the MF-100 stylus on the Glanz ( as a fact I did all the interchanges of stylus in between those cartridges. ) and things does not improve but with the MF-100/Glanz stylus things improved. So my take here is that the Astatic's were designed with a " better " motor than the Glanz.
What I paid for the Glanz is not justified against the other cartridges I own. I bought it more for curiosity and my curiosity had a price.
Of course that if some of you don't own the MF-100 or the MF-200 then the Glanz is an option in that direction but these Astatic/Glanz cartridge are not easy to find out, especialy the Glanz in stand alone version.
Well enough on the Glanz because I want to return to my Precept PC440 and my VandenHul MM3 that for me are a new vintage cartridge generation that I did not encounter before due to its incredible quality top performance that is different from other " yesterday " top performers.
In some way what I call " new generation " for whatever reasons is really a cartridge vintage " new generation ".I think there are 2-3 additional cartridges ( Goldring800, one of them. ) I own that belongs to this " new generation ".
As time permit I will return with the Precept and the MM3.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: I have nothing more to add to the Glanz experiences. As I posted I prefer the Astatic.
I think now is a better idea to focus in the vinatge " new generation ".
Btw, the Signet TK10 MLMK2 could be in that NG niche. On this cartridge I have to clarify a mistake from my part on what I was thinking was the Signet TK10 MK2 when in reality was only the TK10ML ( MK1. Sorry Griffithds I was unaware about. ): things are that I bought two samples of that Signet where the sellers stated the cartridge was the MK2 version but like three months ago I seen and bought on ebay the real Signet MK2 version that's an improved performer over the TK10ML and not for a short margin. The Signet MK2 we can recognize because we can read at its top gold plate the model that states MK2 and at the side of the black cartridge body , in white color, we can read Microline. Well, this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180. Against this MK2 the other AT/Signet top model versions seems to me as " average " performers.
Nandric, if you see it then take my advise and buy it. This week appears one on ebay with out stylus but I think that the MK2 motor is the " key " on its top " different " performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Sorry, must say: " this week appeared ... ". I was tempted to bid but at the end decided to let it gone.
R. |
|
Dear Storyboy: I think I never posted that the MF-200 sounds like the MF-100 but both are more alike than different.
As Nandric said the stylus in the MF/Glanz line can be used in between the different cartridge models.
Good that you own the Astatic's that are very good performers. Could you share your experiences with and other MM/MI cartridges you own?, appreciated.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: ++++ " this true MK2 TK10ML version is IMHO the best ever AT/Signet cartridge even over the famous AT 180.... " +++
well maybe not because I never heard the AT-50 anniversary and exist that great Precept PC-440!
Btw, the stylus in the TK10ML MK2 is an improvement too over the MK1 version.
So, my mistake on that statement.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Desmond: I don't want to start in this thread the same polemic with you. I stated very clear that in that series the G71L is the top of the line and a stand alone version.
If you like it more that 7 you own that's fine with me and my advise is that try to find out a new MF-100 because maybe the one you owns is out of specs or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all.
I forgot, the Glanz cartridge denomination in the stand alone and integrated headshell ( as yours ) are: G7, G1 and the like in the integrated versions and in thye stand alone thel call it the MF series: MFG71, 51 and the like. The G7 IMHO is the same as the G71L and the only spec " difference " ( that could be an error???? on its advertasind. )is the output level where in the integrated headshell is 4.2mv against the 3.5mv in the stand alone version but that difference IMHO is not an advantage because could means too higher inductance against the G71L.
You can go on and on in the same topic but has nothing in hand that can tell us the G7 ( integrated headshell ) was the top of the line against the G71L ( stand alone version. ) other than your opinion where you never heard the MFG71L.
Sometimes I think that your " life " goes with the Glanz topic if your G/ , for whatever reason, was or is beated!!!!! You can be sure that no one will die for that fact.
Btw, bass management in your system is different from mine and IMHO you can't took it as foundation on your opinion.
Anyway, nice to confirm your enjoyment on the Glanz. I like mine too.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Desmond: I forgot, +++++ " or the other reason ( between others ) could be that the " kind distortions " of your 7 are the ones you like it more against the 100. Tha's all. " +++++
where came/comes those additional " kind distortions " on the G7 that the MF-100 or the G71L have not?
the G7 is a headshell integrated design: today, 30-40 years after the G7 design/build, exist several headshells that for sure match in better way the cartridge to performs at its best and that puts " on shame " the integrated one. Today too there are several headshell wires that are a lot better than the ones inside the Glanz that have 30-40 years old. Today too the headshell wire connectors are a lot better than the ones 30-40 years old in the Glanz G7.
All these per se, IMHO, makes that any single advantage ( that there is not any. ) that could have the G7 disappear as dust inside a hurricane. There is no way that the headshell integrated version can or could compete in any way against its stand alone similar " brother ". That you like it is important only to you.
This " brother " can be matched easily to any tonearm not only to the tonearm effective mass but in the alignment to Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson geometry set up.
I respect your opinion but I can't disagree more with. You can think whatever you want and of course you can follow enjoying your Glanz over other top cartridges and stay sticky with but that can't means is a superior performer than the Astati's, MFG71L or almost any other top stand alone MM/MI/LOMC cartridge. As I said: it is only the additional distortions you like it, Good!.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Indieroehre: Grace builded a lot of F-8 different models that was on sale only to the japanese/Asia market.
These are some of them: F8L, F8M, F8D, F8L'10, F8C,F8V, etc, etc.
as theose ones exist several F14 models including the F14Ruby and several LevelII models. No one of them where sold in America/Europe.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear griffithds: Agree, I was a little dramatic about that " average " reference.
I'm only posted in that way trying to explain that is better design and not for a tiny range/margin.
++++ " I don't feel Signet made any changes to the TK10 generator when they brought out the upgraded stylus MKII. " ++++
I can't be absolutely sure but what made it that I posted about is because I runned the MK2 cartridge with the MK1 stylus and performs better than with the MK1 cartridge motor.
Anyway, both are top performers as the 180 but the MK2 is a little different IMHO.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Nandric: Months or years ago I posted to Dgarretson something like this:
++++ " hey why you suddenly change what you was supporting " yesterday " and not today " +++++
and he gave me an answer like this:
+++ " Raul, I have the right to improve my self and improved..... " ++++
that explain per se what means our each one " audio learning curve " and where " I'm " today.
Things are that many of us read and hear and even discuss on many different audio subjects through different forums/threads. This exercise in theory gives us the opportunity to grow up the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to apply those audio learning lessons.
Unfortunatelly only a few of the persons really " learn ". " Really learn " means , IMHO , to take action or actions on what we learn to put on practice what we learn and to have an " audio attitude " according with that learning and according to that learning experiences.
Now, maybe 30-40 years ago when started the " fashion " for headshell integrated cartridge designs, the manufacturers/designers thinked that the cartridge/tonearm alignment was not so important like other factors/characteristics on cartridge set up to achieve the best of any cartridge.
My self not 30-40 years ago but 20 years ago I was unaware on the critical importance subject of cartridge/tonearm alignment and in those times I never took in count.
Even when I " arrived " to Audiogon I can't remember any one that talked/posted on the importance of cartridge/tonearm alignment through Baerwald, Löfgren, Stevenson, etc, etc. kind of alignments. Audio dealers and the " analog gurus " in the audio magazines normally never touched that alignment subject.
I was one of the first persons in Agon whom started to analize the importance of that cartridge/alignment set up. Latter on more and more persons been aware on the subject and appeared several threads in Agon where we discuss in deep the whole subject and the conclusions in every single thread was that we need to make the cartridge/tonearm set up according to any of those alignment/geometry alternatives. The subject was and is so important that started to appear several cartridge/tonearm alignment protractors to make it in the " rith/precise " way because any tiny deviation on that set up increment the sounds/music distortions on what we are listening.
In all those scientific/math alignments the target is to find out the precise cartridge offset angle and overhang for the set up. We analize how tiny deviations on overhang and offset angle or in both take the distortions to higher levels we can imagine and that we can hear.
One of those protractors was the now famous MintLP that has a lot of owners where each one of them bless and blessed this protractor and its precission because in the very first day that they maade their cartridge/tonearm set up alignment through that protractor everything changed for the better and by a wide margin. I can't remember no one that could tolld the that protractor did not improved his cartridge quality performance level.
Now, in a monolitic headshell integrated cartridge design as the Glanz and the FR ones we can't make a precise alignment and can't change an alignment according to what the carfridge/tonearm needs or according what we want.
Why is that?, plain and simple:
IN THE FR7GLANZ DESIGNS YOU CAN'T MAKE ANY SINGLE CHANGE IN THE OFFSET ANGLE AND OVERHANG ACCORDING TO THE SET UP NEEDS!!!!
in the best " scenario " with those monolitics exist ( at random ) only one kind of set up that could coincide with the cartridge needs.
Everytime that we need to change the VTA/SRA the overhang change and in those monolitics you can't change the overhang so you will have higher distortions and if you need to change the offset angle to align in precise way the cartridge cantilever in the MintLP protractor you can't do it either and this means that you have to stay in the way you are hearing/listening those higher distortions and are these " kind of distortions " what you, Desmond, Halcro and several other persons are enjoying!.
I think that all the Glanz/FR monolitic owners ( including me. ) read it or participated in those cartridge/tonearm alignment threads and learned ( as me ) on the whole subject but through the posts of many of those owners seems to me that almost no one learned about, even Halcro put his money in his monolitic retipping it: for what if those high distortions can't change because a retipping?
It is these kind of actions by several owners what makes no sense to me when I know that many of those persons ( including you ) want to improve the quality performance level on your system.
Let me to tell all of you cartridge monolitic owners: IMHO through those monolitics you can't ever improve nothing but to listen to higher distortions degrading and precluding any tiny single improvement you want to achieve.
This was happened just two days ago in other thread, please read it and LEARN:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1357321298&openflup&26&4#26
IMHO those Glanz/FR monolitics are the deepest aberration/error/mistake in analog, at least Audio Technica/Technics/ ( examples. ) designed its cartridge integrated designs with " systems " that permit changes in overhang and Azymuth but no offset angle.
Any one of you think that azymuth could be important for a cartridge can shows at its best?, yes?, well in the Glanz/FR you can't make any azymuth changes either!!!!!
As Dgarretson I learned on the subject and improved my self.
Nandric, I'm not a cartridge seller or a seller of any one like the ones that came years ago to this forum to gave their " teaching " to us " ignorant " people. Unfortunately some of you were so " ignorants " that today are in love with those monolitics and even with that kind of people. Nothing wrong with me, the real subject is that you monolitic owners be happy and if your monolitics are the cartridges that made the magic to put you happy then: good because this is what it matters and not my simple opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear friends: I just find out in a closet two step up transformers: Denon AU-340 and Audiocraft TS-26 ( this one in new condition. ).
I thought all my SUT's were sold but was not in that way. Well due that I have on hand I tested the Denon for a couple hours with no firm/precise conclusions yet.
Now, I post this because the specs say that the Denon should be connected to the MM stage and " see " 47kohms but I did not change the load impedance and runned the AU-340 at 100kohms:
question: is there any trouble to run it at 100k? advantages? disadvantages?
Your comments and advise will be appreciated. Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I like both, the 20SS and the ML170. What the ML170/OCC gave in addition is better detail/transparency due to a little better definiton in the high frequency range this characteristic gives a different soundstage presentation where the ML170/OCC has a better layering than the 20SS.
Yes, the original cantilever is gold plated boron. Worth to rettiping?, this depends, if the 170 stylus needs then go a head but if that stylus still has a " long live " then why to retip it other that you want it to hear a different cartridge performance.
IMHO, the 180 and 170 cartridge generators are not exactly the same. Its electrical internal characteristics are a little different ( I thought were similar but I learned are not. ) and the stylus shape dimensions too.
Where the 180/OCC measure 0.08 m/m the 170ML/OCC 0.1m/m. Even the stylus angle is different: 23° for the former and 20° for the 170/OCC. Exist a difference in weight too: 7.5grs against 7.0grs in the 170/OCC.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Dover/friends: Thank you. I just tested the Denon AU-340 for only 2 hours with my Spectral ( 2ohm/0.2mv ) and the sound was " so so " ( I'm using the SUT 3ohm tap. ) against my active phonolinestage.
Looking to its specs this Denon SUT measure high, it has a wide frequency response ( a characteristic that IMHO is way important especially on SUTs. ): 10hz to 120khz +,- 0.5db/1.0db and its THD is only 0.05%.
It is very user friendly because we can choose between that 3ohm or 40ohm taps ( different gain. ) and has two inputs for two different cartridges. Obviously has a front panel selectror for those inputs and additional a " pass " position.
I already started modification in the AU-340: I'm rewiring right from the input/output transformers with Silver KCAG by KimberKable, I'm connecting directly the output cable ( no more RCA output connector. ) soldering from the SUT board with the Silver cable by Analysis Plus, I'm changing the two inputs RCA connectors with WBT Silver Gen and obviously rewiring the two input wires for that Silver KimberKable.
I think today the up date will be finished and then I will test it. I'm sure there will be a differences for the better because looking inside the wires Denon used was plain zip lamp cord and RCA connectors certainly are not the WBT kind and by-passing the output connectors means more music and less distortions.
We will see, I will share my experiences about.
In the other side the Audiocraft SUT ( new unit in box. ) is a beauty from inside out as everything any product with the Audiocraft " name ". That's what we expect from Audiocraft. Right now I will be in focus with the Denon.
Here you can read something about:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/denon/au-340.shtml
Dover, additional to your kindness information I asked here is a good article on that subject:
http://www.vinylengine.com/step-ups-and-mc-cartridges.shtml
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |