Dear Raul: sorry, I just was being lazy, the full code is of course S1000ZE/X. I'll bear in mind that S1000 is another item. Turns out my best cart for the current set-up (and my speaker x-over is now maxed out...)
BTW, I'm still awaiting the SAS correct item for my V15, plus replacement for M20FL super... : nobody is perfect in the trade. Greetings, Axel |
Dear Raul: good to hear your Empire performs "just splendid!"
Could it be I got the VTA/SRA just right as well this time? As I mentioned I have it now at ~ 1.5mm arm up measured on the V arm's side line marking. This means quite a bit more when measured directly by the pivot because of the angle involved and if measured it is more then 3mm up at the pivot.
Right now I have no inclination to listen to any other cart as it seems to do just about everything right, including the well defined upper-bass and bass.
For the sake of interest where would you see this performance when compared to the earlier much mentioned AT-20SS? How would you characterise the differences in tone? Like the harmonics, and/or brighter, warmer, faster, etc. etc.
Greetings, Axel |
Hi, I am currently using one of my 'old' MMs, the Empire 1000ZE/X. (Still awaiting my Windfeld replacement back from Ortofon).
That said, I'm still curious what any of the currently available Ortofon MMs sound like when comparing with some of those much older MMs. Development of MMs, at least in theory, should not have stopped, or in deed gone backwards --- or has it?
Or is it that any 'good' MM will simply cost now as well many times the price of most of those discussed in the thread ~ >2k$?
We are also now seeing top MMs with mostly boron cantilevers and Shiabata stylus rather then Elliptical styli and alu-tube cantilever... It this actually an 'improvement', or simply going with the current trend of what is used on MCs?
Some say, that a case can be made for alu-tube type cantilevers in terms of resonance behaviour when compared to that little hard stick of boron. When beryllium, also titanium was still used it was also a tube, yes?
Any thoughts on these questions? Thanks, Axel |
Howdy All, Frogman you do have come up with the same explanation I did (and posted in various threads), but here comes the 'problem': I like to overcome it by using an SUT with my 0.3mV Windfeld.
Raul is no friend of SUTs in general, neither in particular, we know each other's take, agree to differ and have some 'bliss'.
Now I have received my NEW (replacement) Windfeld back from Ortofon after 3 months wait and SOME exercise in patience and then some.
I have replaced my Empire S1000ZE/X MM with the Windfeld MC and am listening right now.
Frogman, your point about transient speed and resolution is right-on as well -------- of course MUSIC is not ONLY about speed and detail. It is where those good MMs score, plain and simple.
Right now I have to go against my urge to take that Windfeld out again and put back the Empire ---- in all fairness I will TRY not do that, as I have to give that 'poor' 4k$ MC cart at least a chance of a couple of hours playing in, yes.
The point however is: how these MMs beat the socks of these 'transient & resolution master MCs' and I am playing it with an SUT! (which aught to slow it some). Without SUT, I would have a hard time to listen for 20 - 30 hours of transient-speed and high resolution detail, with a shortfall of MUSIC. It sort of pisses me off actually.
A very well regarded phono & pre-amp designer (Allen Wright) once mentioned how EVERY ELECTRON counts when you want top performance from a LOMC and I believe he knows what he is talking about.
This, Frogman, gets back to your phono-pre take and the very low voltages the phono-pre has to work with when running LOMC. In the case of MMs there is no counting of electrons indicated by having 10 to 20 times more output voltage.
I'll see for how long I'll go with the Windfeld, though right now it sounds just too 'mechanical' and lacking the liquidity and musical flow of the Empire.
I'll be back with more some time later. Cheers, Axel |
Hi all, yes, lots of things seem to play into it. For my setup, it's all SS, it ALWAYS just seems to sound more 'complete' when I run MM or MI.
It is a weird thing, that MC seems to have 'everything' more in terms of transient-speed and -resolution- of sorts, maybe 'false' resolution? But at the same time there is something 'missing' with MCs and I think it has to do with lack of 'harmonic completeness'. Rationally all seems to be there, but emotionally, subjectively, it sounds too perked up and slightly bleach in my SS system, highlighted/exaggerated and yet somehow ‘empty’ at the same time, actually just NOT the way real music sounds.
I guess if I had all tubes it might easily be very different. Incidentally I use the exact same phono-pre gain for both MC and MM (60dB) but change the input gain of my ML pre-amp instead (+ or - 18dB), if I use MC without SUT.
The trouble with all this guess work --- only the ear can notice the difference. Currently available measuring technique is not able to help pin it down, it's too subtle for measurement. Axel |
Hi All, Raul says:+++ things are that Axelwahl is running his cartridges at 47K and that's a difference. +++
One of the draw-backs with SMD phono-boards is, that such changes (47k to 100k) are an issue...
Having said this, right now I'm back with my A&R P77 which sounds more 'right' than my new (replacement) Windfeld with or without SUT. It is incredibly fast and detailed, but somehow less real...
I like to note though, that the Windfeld with FR XF-1 SUT and NO resistive loading sounded better to me, than without SUT. However, the comments on MC vs MM/MI sound I made earlier on, still stand --- so I'm back with MM. Some say - my ears got equalised to MM over the last 3-4 month. I believe it is more -a priori- to know when an instrument sounds more 'real' or 'hyped up'. Enjoy the music, Axel |
Thanks Dgarretson, I will look into it when I have some ZEN. Greetings, Axel |
Hi, I just now put back my Empire S1000ZE/X after a short sojourn with my recently returned new Windfeld.
Just listening to piano and orchestra is such a relief in 'reality'. It is of course all related to my all SS system, but the Windfeld can't touch the sound quality, of sweetness, pearly piano notes, hall information, sense of thereness, etc. of what this MM Empire produces.
I had to share this. Cheers, Axel |
Raul, +++ Axel, I urge to change your load impedance to 100K!!! +++
I'll work on it, but is a TX2575 *THE* resistor for this, or have we also some other useful suggestions?
I'd truly dislike the though have so solder and re-solder a discrete R on a chippoed SMD pcb... eish! Greetings, Axel |
Hi, a quick report back on SAS stylus for V15 III cart. It is *hyper* resolved, but I can not go enough down with my SME V arm to get at least to 'level arm' position. (last band is lifting the arm out of the groove)
So far the V15 III with SAS is the only cart that can track my most difficult LP band see comment: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245595534&openflup&65&4#65
Therefore currently I'm back with Windfeld and XF-1 tranny, (without any resistive loading) whilst awaiting an SME V arm shim as to obtain more VTA travel. Cheers, |
|
Dear Raul: +++ How do you go with the 100K subject in your PS +++
Right now I don't... also I think that the V15 III with SAS would be the wrong item to use with 100k because it has already so much HF energy - YMMV.
I first need the SME spacer to figure out my next step, because ALL these NOS MM/MI seem on the low building-height seize for good SAR (SME V arm) clearance.
M20FL super, will be coming back soon now from William Thakker with new stylus. This one also seems fine with HF energy, but also is too low in building height for more SAR clearance.
Greetings, |
Hi ALL, as Raul mentions: [without headshell wires]...the connection is more direct and in " theory " less signal degradation that with a so low level signal is something important to care about. ABSOLUTELY, different headshell wires sound VERY different (and so would do none I guess). In my case I found using anything other then the VERY thin silver (solid) wires that come with my SME V arm I get an immediate sound variation actually degradation e.g. wires that would come with Ortofon Windfeld or Jubile...
BTW, I'm back with my Empire S1000ZE and it does more for me, in my system, then ANY Windfeld configuration of resistive loading or SUT with or without primary or secondary loading. Don't get me wrong, the Windfeld is a VERY nice sounding cart, but the Empire just does more for me --- and that is what counts in the end :-) Greetings, Axel |
Hi Dean_man, re.: that wedge washer... For all I know it was provided to allow for more VTA adjustment range of various arm/platter combinations.
In my case I can tell, the S1000ZE/X is as close as it gets to the construction parameters of e.g. my Ortofon Windfeld or Jubilee or a Lyra Dorian. That means about 18mm high and 9.5 mm from stylus tip to mounting hole centre.
So in the case of my SME V arm it fits VERY well as is --- same can not be said about many other MM oldies like AT140LC, Shure V15 III (yet still lower with SAS stylus), M20FL super and the like. In those cases a washer is needed to prevent the back of the SME V arm from touching the record when getting to the last band.
I think if the VTA adjustment range is fine without the help of any washer it is the preferred way to go.
Greetings, Axel |
Dear Raul, this Empire 1000GT item is by the same dude that is bidding up his own stuff!! Screw this. He bid it up last time and now he is trying selling it again for some nutty price jumping from 20$ to 200$ and then 225$ every couple of minutes with ~ 7 days to go.
Last time he bid his stuff up some 13 times with no apparent counter bids. I can get just pissed off only watching this BS.
Greetings, Axel |
Raul, re: 1000GT on eBay. I have some difficulty to understand this sellers story... In any case, it seems after your enquiry those 'pump-up bids' have been cancelled --- but I can almost tell you what's next: they'll be back just before closing time.
Having seen this twice by now is enough for me to keep my finger away from it.
Thank you for caring, Axel |
Hi Dgob, you may well be right. However, that's what it says on my cart box "S1000ZE/X-ERD". It incidentally includes one extra stylus. Just now checking into the manual it does not have the "S" in front, neither the "-ERD".
Go figure :-) Axel |
Dear Raul, I will back you up with EVERY word you said as it reflects my own experience --- and you will know we have come some way in this matter.
Also, I think the wrong direction has already been taken by some new MM designs --- thankfully not my present problem. But yes, I wish some designers will take note of what is happening here, and it will be for the better, it will be for the MUSIC.
Greetings, Axel |
Well Lewm, since I find the exact same words for it all as Raul did, (of course I do not manufacture any Hi-end equipment as such) you may add a pair of Burmester 961 to your enquiry, if we’d stick with speakers. Following add the X350.5 Pass and ML326S preamp.
I think I'm repeating myself, but what you are getting at is what I mentioned a few time before: -the apparently favourable match between SS gear and MM-. EVERYTHING that Raul experiences is my listening experience too, to the dot and pretty uncanny that is.
MCs are great (the good ones!) but MM do just more for the music, that simple and that controversial? It may have something to do with what some call: "completeness of the harmonic train".
Greetings, Axel |
Lewm, I say, your search for audio truth starts to sound like Karl Popper :-) So a 40 year old integrated plastic head-shell MM had more 'thruthlikeness' then the current goodies, including 10k - 13k MCs... it is something to behold. The cart industry will have to take note Now where is our cart man C.J. these days? Greetings, Axel |
Hi Raul, you asked: +++ what do you think on the MM alternative? do you already experienced on the last six months? which cartridges models? +++
:-) I don't know if that is a leading question, but let me answer it frankly and as little stupidly as possible. (Stupidly, as there are no stupid questions, but surely stupid answers...)
My last MM ownership goes some years back and is therefore a bit 'shady' to put it best. A REGA 100 which was pretty wanting, and a Shure V15, which was very finicky as I recall. (high compliance and < 1gram VTF, plain odd by today's more usual carts)
Both would be NO a match what so ever to my current MC cart experiences, of: Ortofon Jubilee, Lyra Dorian, Ortofon Windfeld, (on loan) Transfiguration Orpheus, DV 10x5, and DV 20X-L.
All these MCs still qualify a LO MCs except the DV 10x5 with 2.5mV output. In essence my experience is: **you get what you pay for** with the Orpheus just cleaning the field beyond any question, and followed by the Windfeld with some distance, similar to the Jubilee trailing the Windfeld. (All listened to in my own system). The Lyra Dorian being on the higher LO-end with 0.6mV is a good/stunning performer but lacking in neutrality, tilted to the top end with overly detailed ness if you wish. If you like it 'stunning', a very good pick for the buck.
The Dynavector DV 20X-L is more arm dependent in my experience and sounds jolly tight bassed with a little rolled-off-ness in the treble on a carbon arm, but in the more neutral SME V displaying a less pleasing nature (I thought I now could hear that hard-alu cantilever...)
The DV 10X5 is a good pick for little money but that is 'little boys league' (or what ever you'd call it, and the mounting plain sucks!). It does nothing wrong --- BUT a lot less of what in the groove.
I have also had the mixed pleasure to listen to various Sumikos and would not bother, again: you get what you pay for. Their latest top offering sounded 'big boys league', and has some of a Dorian character but slightly more refined, yet no where near the Orpheus, and not as neutral as a Windfeld.
So, let's see if that is of some use in this context.
Next is the related phono-pre situation. I have used my ML 326S on board phono-modules in MM mode (with my SUT) and found that the 100mV!!!!! overload margin looks great on paper! But it simply lacks detail and refinement in sound. I have no hope at all that ANY MM could ever make up this short-coming --- so its MC for me I guess.
As to the construction differences I can not see that even with the most powerful smallest magnets a similar resolution and detail retrieval is possible. This is important to me, since some e.g. late Romantic Classics only make sense to me with all the detailed impressionist sound painting. In fact I think for pop and really very good pop and rock I imagine an MM might be the better type of cart. There is some raw drive of an old Wurlitzer Juke Box that would just be the better representation with say an Elvis record :-) And I do NOT mean this in any way derogatory.
Greetings, Axel |
|
Hi Raul,
I know there are some rather fine NOS MMs in your possession and I trust they are mighty fine -- better than Wurlitzer and then some :-)
But here is a challenge: where do you get such in good order? And also replacement styli?
I have listened to a fair number of current Ortofon MM carts around here, but that's truly all Mid-Fi. Nice yes, but not my quality expectation.
Now leaning out of the window for say 1k$ for some nicely renown NOS MM leaves me a bit scared. Also my MM phono-input is (checked with SUT and MC) not looking too promising, it has a rather lesser resolution than going through the 60dB MC input. (All SS as I should re-state0
So how would you go about it, to make a convertee in such circumstances?
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Raul, you say: - First than all you have to have a good MM phono stage.- I have the ML326S phono modules and they have some good 'score' with e.g. German AUDIO magazine, so you tell me if those could work. But one caveat, I can not change input impedance to 70k or 100k since ALL is SMDs on two small PCBs. I can only go lower impedance by using the provided loading 'jumpers' and resistor mounting posts.
- Second, a positive and expectant attitude to " explore " a " new " audio alternative through MM cartridges. - I absolutely do, since: - "The good news is that are almost inexpensive against the top LOMC today prices." -
- Third, time/patience to find out through the web the NOS or second hand MM cartridges that you want try ( here there is no " plug&play " game. ). There is my first problem, since there seem a LOT of low-fi MMs that have flooded the 'el-cheapo' market (correct me if I'm wrong).
Having said that, can you name us some good examples that would, according to your tests, produce results with a 47k input impedance. That would be of some help, since purchasing loads of 'duds' will add up also...
Many thanks, Axel |
Thanks Raul, now it looks like I have a project coming on :-)
The 326S has a jumper setting for 40dB MM or 60dB MC and a 0nF or 10nF cap jumper. I can not have any other capacitances than this (easily). Will this become an issue in your experience?
Axel |
Thanks Raul,
I hope this info is of value to the overall discussion also. I'll see what my 'messenger' will be able to 'dig up' in Munich...
Greetings, Axel |
OK, and Hi All, I had to 'fall back' on my MM carts (very recently acquired) as my MC is in for repair.
So, I had no option to start with, when dealing with that 'stand-in' MM. I found out to my surprise, that it (A&R P-77) is at least as demanding to set-up as ANY MC I worked with so far. This might be less of a surprise for some other members, it was for me, so do not underestimate that side of it. Raul had said: "No Plug&Play"! and an MM surely is not (not talking about a round-point, OK)
Once I got it just right - next surprise! This 'middle of the road' vintage MM cart turns out one serious competitor, so much so, that I truly think I will NOT even want go back and bother listening to my 3.5k$ MC cart any more!
Why, because it (MM) just sounds more RIGHT. Rhythm, timing, tonal colours, natural balance of treble to bass to put it in a nut-shell.
I have just very recently (3 - 4 days ago) listened to a Transfiguration Orpheus and yes, it has more resolution, very nice tonal colours --- but something of that MC carts particular way of sounding too. It is the same that I get from even the best of CD players, and until quite recently could not explain what it could be.
As a follow-up to the Munich Hi-End, a discussion brought something into focus: Treble roll-off behaviour, actually foremost related to tweeters, but also of some major relevance to carts IMO. Steen Duelund figured it out, (he is no more with us since ~ 2005), but he noticed that if a treble source e.g. a tweeter goes very high to say 20, 30, 40Hz or even more, and then suddenly falls off steeply, from an until then pretty flat response --- something happens to the listening impression. Something starts to sound 'wrong'.
He (S.D.) also explained, that if you listen to e.g. live music, such steep roll-off NEVER happens. In 'natural' listening, the further away from the source you are the more treble rolls off, B U T it does so quite gently and naturally to the ear. Thereby all harmonic information stays undisturbed, 'in takt'...
The interesting thing is, that MMs have the habit to roll of more early than MC, but do so more gently i.e. do not fall off a cliff when done. That made me think...
What I experience, listening to a well set-up MM in a highly resolved system, is that sort of naturalness that I always seem to miss with MCs. MCs remind me of a TV with the contrast turned up too much as an example. Nice to be impressed for a while, until something in your head tells you that this is just not quite right, a little bit overdone...
It is my experience that MCs are just so tuned to bring out more 'contrast' and it can be exiting - for a while, but then it can get also to this: something's not 'right' feeling. Now, if you like it, nothing wrong at all --- as for myself I prefer that more 'relaxing into the music thing' and not getting 'frightened' by that 'over-exposed, or over-contrasted' as much as it can be a real kick, stunning, exiting and so forth, for vere hunting for the next detail etc.
So, it's horses for courses. A good audio friend of mine will NOT go for this (MM) sound, he might be inclined to even ridicule me for wanting it more 'normal'. But I know, when it sound more right, THAT is what counts for me.
Enjoy the music, as Raul would say,
Axel
PS: Another enquiry yet: Why MMs should have lost their rightful place, so to speak... |
Hi Raul and All, I have a question, that might help me to understand some of these MM 'issues'. The guy that gave that A$R P77 to me (also V15 VN35MR) has replaced it with the relative new Ortofon OM 5E, their most affordable MM if I'm right. e is convinced that it sounds much better than the former two mentioned.
In your opinion, can that be the case, and that OM 5E would be a further improvement on a P77, or would this indicate that he never got his alignments right?
Regarding the V15 VN35MR it might be easier to explain, since in my set-up it does not sound as coherent than he A&R P77. That V15 VN35MR sound more detailed, but seems to lack the coherent mid to bass of the P77 and sound more somehow a bit etched.
Anyone that can comment on that OM 5E? see under --- http://www.ortofon.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=64
Many thanks, Axel |
Hi Raul, Halcro et al,
I am, by my inquisitive nature, still intrigued about this **'organic' transparent 'rightness' of the humble MM cartridge**...
I have floated one **hypothesis**: (from Greek ὑπόθεσις [iˈpoθesis]) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena...) ... just to get that straight,
Or was it rather a: **theory** (in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. --- End of quote. This just, before I get accused of semantics etc.
You see, most of this sharing goes on about what these MMs do when compared to MCs and it would be of some use to have as more logical, never mind scientific explanation, why this should be so. Otherwise it's just a load of "he said she said"... It was 'Steen Duelund' I mentioned earlier that might just have got close to it i.e. more gentle treble roll-off = more natural listening experience...
"Duelund" the man with his special capacitors, resistors, driver (theories) etc. was chasing best possible **natural** sound after all, and a lot relating to cross-over behaviour also.
Is anyone willing to put some meat on this 'bone' or are we now just going on in some sort of self-congratulatory fashion telling each other how great MMs sound as compared to MCs, I wonder?
I have the idea, that most MC-ONLY folks would be moved out of their corner to get something more substancial then: hey, it sound just so great to my ears in my system, etc.
The phenomena we have heard, all of us MM listeners -- but after all there aught to be some logical explanation to help some MC-ONLY folks to take note what we are on about.
Raul, who's started this thread, is rather insistent not to make this some 'secret MM society' to be kept under the radar --- and be ridiculed for being nostalgic and backward oriented, away from the current most advanced MC developments now going for $20 000 'bleeding edge' technology... (SirSpeedy with his hi-end cost consciousness aught to like this one :-)
What do you think?
Greetings, Axel |
Hi all, in answer to why do MMs have a more 'natural sound' and all that good stuff, let me put forward some additional hypothesis -- facts even?
Some say, that NO MC will be able to bring forth the 'information density' of an MM, due to it's very low voltage output --- and just about all phono-stages work with voltage rather than current.
It is interesting to note that some top MC makers tell you, that their step-up transformer will be a 'requirement' to bring out the best in their carts --- even it they deliver a reasonably healthy ~0.5mV output. As an example take 'My Sonic Lab Eminent MC Cartridge' with their 'Stage XXX Step-Up Transformer(s)'. Lyra has their trannie but does not insist you have to have on. Also, Ortofon's ~ 0.2mV SPUs are asking for an SUT, even though it should have no problem with a 66 - 78dB phono-stages, or? The anti-SUT faction tells its all BS, and that an SUT will 'mess-up' things more than it helps, oh yes?
Now let's look at an MM --- the above is a non-issue in every respect since just about ALL MMs deliver the 'mean spec' voltage required by a phono-stage i.e. 4.7mV, some more some less. So what's my point - as we all seem to know all this in any case? My point is, that we are talking carts here, and VERY little about phono-stages. More specific, the ABILITY of a phono-stage to make 'ood sound' from e.g. ~ 0.3mV as compared to ~ 5.0mV! Some say, that e.g. op-amps have a VERY hard time to actually deliver the goods, in the context of information density i.e. harmonic completeness, --- micro info gets lost in the process of pumping up the signal by 66 - 78dB. Could well be, someone out there might know some more about that. Now still with phono-stages, let's look at the tube only ones. NO WAY can ANY tube stage do 66dB or even more, it just gets to noisy due to tube rush. So it's either going to be a hybrid or, lo and behold, we have some SUT inside (Manley, EAR, etc.) that's taking care of business for an MC. Jolly good I say, maybe that's why they sound so good with MCs in the first place!
So, can it be it's the phono-stage's work made easier, that the MM scores where the MC sound either too lean or skeletal by comparison? And putting an SUT being a NO-NO for so may purists?
Fact remains, even if you are OK with this SUT/MC thing it gets extraordinarily expensive. A good SUT will rival the MC cart in terms of $$$$.
And so it's at least worth a VERY GOOD try and listen to see what this 'old time rock&roll' MM cart can do for you.
Greetings, Axel PS: J.C., Lyra sells a trannie but far to few I should think :-) |
Halcro! A mile stone of a review. Thank you, Axel |
Halcro, you ask: >>> ... did you receive the photos and technical information I sent you on the Garrott P77 by way of Email? <<< Oh, yes! I did, and send you a reply also... was it lost in the mail?
In fact I'd asked you for a pic from the bottom of your P-77 so as to see the stylus and cantilever more clearly. Meanwhile I could ascertain that the cantilevers are of the same construction (as in the A&R) -- an 'Aluminium Dual Tube' something I had not come across this far. I've no idea if the stylus shapes are different. The A&R uses originally, styli made by Dr. Ernst Weinz in Idar Oberstein, Germany. When Dr. Weinz unexpectedly died, A&R were able to source UK made diamond styli from Expert Pickups in the UK. Any idea where the 'Brothers' sourced theirs?
Thanks again, Axel |
|
Hi all, if we keep it coming like that, we might just beat that 'steam-cleaning thread' :-) Now, >>> The V15xMR continues to gather dust, in favour of the ***V15-111/SAS*** and the 97xE <<< This is some good news to my ears (eyes, so far). It'll be for a short while till I get that SAS I ordered for my V15 type III... But now! I got this "Empire S1000 ZE/X" on a roll, and let me tell you --- VERY NICE in deed! Raul, as I understand it, is having his cart still with the re-tipper. The original claims a 'hand polished' stylus, no less. Some of it's spec. sounds pretty far out, like better 35dB channel separation! and **0.25gm** - 1.25gm VTF... Well all I can tell this far: it sound really great and I shall be VERY interested to learn where it scores on Raul's scale of MMs. (I guess we'd need some sort of scale sooner or later, or does that sound to pretentious?) If my A&R P-77 is a 5 or 6 out of 10, I'd give the S1000 ZE/X an 8 or even a bit more. Saying this, I'd be little surprised if Raul will tell us that there's still plenty more till we hit a 9 or 9.5 (I'll keep it simple :-) Those MMs make single instruments come out so REAL, they like guitar, violin and what 'AIR' they produce these 'old' things is almost unbelievable. OK, I stop rambling now and get seriously back to the music. Cheers, Axel |
Hi Dgob in answer to your question: I'm using an SME V arm, practically no damping, 1g VTF and about the same for anti-skate. I have tried to go lower in VTF, just for interest, but than it starts to sound like some too little loaded MC i.e. a bit splashy...
Also agree with Dean_man about the sound, very alive and "no listening fatigue" type of treble, yet highly resolved. As to VTA I have it level as can be on a 150gr record, which equals a tad nose down on most thinner vinyl.
Axel |
Hi Dgob, I only have one arm, the SME V. I do know that Raul is having his ZE/X re-tipped and he has arms and decks a plenty. So with a bit of patience he might let us know his findings, also with regard to your arm question, when his re-tipping is done.
Next item: - Townshend EEI 500 MM, - Stylus type: shanked parabolic. Not a bad cart either, but quite a bit more 'dry' in comparison to the ZE/X. Maybe it will loosen up, I shall see. I have noted that it's impedance is a stack higher than e.g. the ZE/X, which I measured at ~ 480ohms. The "EEI 500" is 2.5k ohms and quite a different item.
Now, what I also notice with the ZE/X, it is the most 'alive' cart in terms of tonearm 'feedback'. Never had a cart as yet that lets me hear if I only as much a touch the tonearm, and I'm NOT talking about static! My SME V almost sounds like a micro! Now you take that more delicate Moerch arm of yours and you get some idea! I have a feeling the ZE/X really needs a very well damped arm --- but let's see what the experts have to say about it. Greetings, Axel |
Hi all, as Raul rightly suggests in sharing of all information MM, let me do this with regard to one apparently lesser known MM: the "Townshend EEI 500, parabolic". Raul hasn't heard of it, so I guess it must be 'under the radar' :-). Initially it sounded somewhat 'dry', I'd reported, and not much to write about. Upon further reading up on the required setup (thanks to Vinyengine see: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/townshend/eei-500.shtml) I stumbled on some interesting information --- i.e. parabolic styli like to be set-up 'heal down' or with negative VTA. So I tried, lo and behold, that did the trick! Listening to 'Missa (solemnis)' KV 139 >> Waisenhausmesse<< by W.A. Mozart (he was only 13 years old when he wrote it!) DG 2530 777, with a young Claudio Abbado conducting, Vienna Sate Opera Chorus, and Vienna Philharmonic --- I have 'goose bumps' no end... Next, 'Gloria Salve Regina' Vivaldi in San Marco (church Venice recorded)' Philips 6780 007, more of the same, wow! This cart is doing something none of my MCs managed to do. I have of course played these records before, more then once. Now one question remains, that is the negative VTA for 'parabolic' styli... I investigated this a bit further and found some very contradictory information for the oft mentioned 'Garrott P77' with a 'Micro Tracer' stylus, also quoted to be a 'parabolic' stylus. In the manual, kindly forwarded to me by HALCRO, the original Brothers' manual mentions to use (a LOT) of POSITIVE VTA i.e. 4-5 mm UP! from the arm being parallel. Now what? So I give my A&R P77 a try with negative VTA (I had run it with positive this far) Note: "The A&R P77 featured a Weinz Paroc (parabolic oval cone) stylus..." it also works fine, in fact better with negative VTA. Hm.. Now is this some well know information, that only I missed this far?! The "Townshend EEI 500" manual states, I quote: "It has been found that to achieve the best Vertical Tracking Angle for parabolic styli, the rear of the arm should be lowered. (as opposed to some elliptical designs, which need the arm raised at the rear).
Please let's have some of your expert findings on this one to share. Many thanks, Axel |
Hi All, I got another dose of anti-MM yesterday and it brings about my question: Has the better 'fit/sound/match/etc.' of these MMs to do with the 'inability' of 60dB plus phono-stages to 'truly' resolve the much smaller MC signals, than the one offered by an MM?
The argument is, that most 60dB plus stages use 'inadequate technology' to do MCs 'justice' i.e. using op-amps and even if discrete components --- not good enough also with most all of them MC stages... The problem (if it is such) is not present using only 40dB step-up stages, all of the 'tricky' 60-78dB step-up stuff is simply eliminated.
So, only some of the VERY TOP MC stages would actually qualify to do 'justice' to carts like 'Titan i', Orpheus, DV drt xv-1s/t, etc. etc.? Alan Wright's phono-stage seems to qualify I'm told, and it seems way 'under the radar' and is not even mentioned in the: "Stand out phono stages" thread! http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1195322402&openfrom&70&4
With 40dB for MMs we can happily use tubes only also, going higher starts to get VERY EXPENSIVE to do MCs any justice, or? Hybrid tube stages with almost unobtainable JFETs in the first stage... Is that why my (and most every one else's) MC stage sux, and why MM is the way to go --- IF you like to listen to music rather then 'over-contrasted' un-real Hi-End MC sound only? I really can't say, but I can say that my currently running S1000 ZE/X Empire sound CLEARLY better than the Orpheus I listened to... and what about Rauls PC-1 argument that comes to mind?
So is it, that if I do not spend >$10 000 on the phono-stage (you know all the contenders) I better stick with a top MM? Raul, has one pretty snazzy phono-stage/pre-amp as I know --- who else can shed some light on this argument?
Also, I 'dumped' my previous stage in favour of one integrated into my pre-amp, better power supply, no extra cables, no extra connectors, better screening, etc. etc. Have I gone the 'wrong way' like --- MM only now?
Not that I'm complaining, but I'd be very interested to hear some expert comments on this one, since I'm getting close to sell off my PW MC when ever I get it back. Lest I have another $10k plus to spend on a 'commensurate' phono-stage, which by DEFFINITION will NOT EVER be able to reside inside my or ANY pre-amp, as I understand it.
Greetings, Axel PS: To hell with all that misleading review MC stuff if the above said holds any truth. Eish! |
Next AT question like Badcap's: Has anyone here with an Audio Technica AT-140LC tried the 'upgrade' stylus ATN440MLa on it. Was it an improvement? If so in what way.
Thanks PS: Thanks Badcap, for your typing help :-) |
Hi Timeltel, so you still do like your type III, I can't blame you :-)
I still haven’t received my SAS and now having 'discovered' this –negative- VTA bit with my VN35MR.
I guess I should have known all the time, but as I stated in another thread on VTA, in the late 70s early 80s when I had the exact same cart no one ever seemed to talk about VTA. I think it was then, that most folks used conical and elliptical styli at best ---- Micro Ridge, Shiabata, Fine-Line wow! Who had that?
Well *I* had this MR, but didn't know even what VTA was if I recall, and so with most every one else (in my part of the world).
And so we learn, but I like to ask you if that SAS can still do MORE than the MR? It is pretty hard for me to imagine actually --- I did read the reports on the SAS, but recall I decided to go for it when that 'wrong' VTA made that MR cart sound just too harsh.
Now it sounds like you described it with that SAS stylus, how’s that?
Greetings, Axel PS: Best cart in my system for my ears this far... and it's an MM! |
Hi Timeltel you may want to look up: "VTA setting for 'parabolic' and 'elliptical' styli" http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1244713018
Find some more insights and entertainment on the VTA subject.
I measured the VTA on my V15 III again, and it is 1.5mm negative/down with 180g records.
Funny, or expected if you wish, the measure comes to pretty level arm on 'normal' vinyl. It is still so sparkling (with the MR stylus) that I could go more down, B U T using a SME-V arm, it would start to touch the vinyl (at the rear arm end) with 180g records.
This would require fitting a shim, throwing out everything, plus I'm not sure if the sound be affected.
Have you compared the MR to the SAS on your V15 III?
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Timeltel nope, I ordered my SAS from LP Gear. That came by Raul's kind initiative, and I'm told it has been shipped. I'll keep you posted on the listening impressions. BTW, I also find 1.1g VTF best with the MR. It shall be interesting to see what transpires... Greetings, Axel |
Hi Lewm, you say: >>> Perhaps it is just the robust voltage output, which makes life so much easier for the phono preamp, that is the root cause. <<< -- this is what I commented on some time before, and I think it must have a LOT to do with the ability of a phono-stage's 'effectively' pumping up micro-detail from 0.3mv or less, compared to having 'the full Monty' of 3.5mV to ~ 5mV that is offered by an MM.
It has been mentioned by the highly regarded phono/pre-amp designer Allen Wright (and NOT in joking), to truly get the best from an MC: "You literally have to count every electron..." It is my contention that even a lot of the better MC phono-stages are ultimately not up to this task, and it is here where a good MM will score by making the phono-stage's job A LOT easier.
Using an MC with an SUT is doing something similar, alas not quite as efficient as a good MM will do it, YMMV.
Greetings, Axel |
|
Hi All, back to MMs for a change. My current V15 III with MR stylus is now tracking with total ease one of the known 'difficult' LPs, "La Boheme" DECCA SXL 2248. None, of my previous MCs (only a few that is) managed such EVER. Immediate difference: The V15 III is quoted as having 22.5cu compliance, all MCs are between 12cu to 16cu. VTF of the V15 III is 1.02gm, VTF for the MCs was ranging from 1.8gm to 2.6gm!
This even brings about the question of better compatibility of MM carts to 'older' type of vinyl, could that be the case?
In a previous thread about 'sibilants' Doug mentioned SXL 2248, as one of his 'test items'!
The other LP "so long so wrong" by Alison Krauss..., side 2 last band, 3rd cut (another test item) is still slightly sibilant, but again less than any MC was to date. (I did I try!)
So, tracking distortion (sopranos, massed instruments, etc.) and sibilants seem not of the same source of trouble either, just to mention.
Greetings, Axel |
Hi Audiofeil, :-) MY MCs!!!!! sorry, I though that was implied. So again: >>> all **my** MCs **that I used for comparison** are between 12cu to 16cu. <<<
Now to less than 12cu, I guess would only make the issue worse?! But if you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear your findings, since as always YMMV.
Thank you for pointing out this lack of clarity. Axel |
Hi Raul, interesting that you 'consider' the phono-stage, all things +/- equal, as of 'less' influence on some these MMs marvellous performance. That's powerful!
To say it again, and I'm now busy with an AT140LC which YET AGAIN outclasses all MCs I had in my system to date. This in terms of palpability, sound stage, realness or more true to instruments like violin, guitar, flute, etc. When it gets to full blown orchestra, I think, I just do not have the system to bring the 'Chicago with Reiner' into my room, it's good, powerful yes, but there are limits.
Having said that, no MC could overcome this purely physical obstacle either, and neither would I expect it. Not even if I'd listen to Grand Utopias with Boulder's biggest monos (marvellous as they all are).
Thanks, Axel |
Raul, thanks for clarifying that point. >>> ... that we don't lose the merits of the MM technology design that is different from the MC design ... <<<
It cold be said otherwise, that all an MM is doing make life of a phono-stage more easy, and that was all there is to it.
As you point out: that's not the whole story.
Thank you, Axel PS: I did a change over to 'Elite EEI 500' --- sooner or later I need at least two tonearms, because this one ALSO sounds so good. Punchy bass, clear resolved treble. Now I find out why you 'only' have 10 arms mounted... :-) |
Hm, >>> and next month you will need 5 tonearms...<<<
Maybe you will let me know how do go about that, without forsaking the odd bottle of "Château Lafite Rothschild" ... change to "Château Mouton Rothschild"? Eish!
Listening last night to some of "A. Vollenweider's" Albums, using the 'EEI 500' right now, I thought this getting like the equivalent of an IMAX movie. (Recall I do not have such big speakers, Burmester 961)
The size of stage this MM can create is just incredible, it has to be on the vinyl of course - and most do not have such extreme staging, and surely 'massaged' by all the mastering used, but still!
I of course listened to all this with MCs before. Mostly I wouldn't even bother to go through the whole album, and now this.
I'm still baffled, about what synergy is creating this sound from a ~ 35 year old MM cart. Not one MC has done this to date, and I wonder if it ever will, YMMV.
Axel |
Hi Timeltel, sorry I'm a bit slow maybe, but can you make it a bit more easy for me.
So what was the progression again on the **V15 III only**. Starting with ??(you mentioned 3 styli), then MR, then SAS.
I only get the M97xE part, which is relating to Raul's agenda.
Thanks, Axel |
Timeltel one more thing, very important to know:
Did the SAS want a different SRA/VTA?
As background, I running into trouble with the large negative VTA on many of these older carts on my SME-V due to the conical fat-end of this arm touching warps in the start wax, lifting the stylus right out of the groove.
I'm loath to fit any hims as they mess with the arm / cart / res. tuning.
Axel |
Timeltel, >>> Regarding the V15VxMR, the cartridge seemed so designed for a specific voice, I had difficulty pinpointing VTA <<<
In my case it needs to be negative (down arm) VTA/SRA from my normal spacer ~ (1/2") 12.7mm to ~ 8,7mm = 4mm delta, and equal to about 2.5mm negative. Without this, that V15 III VN35MR sounds very aggressive in the treble. Due to my SME V arm's down limitation it is as low as I can go thereby I a have no difficulty in 'pinpointing' VTA in this scenario... :-)
I was **hoping** that SAS could do with some negative VTA.
Please keep us posted on your further findings. Thanks, Axel |
Raul, I think one thing might not be altogether understood by the audience, about these MM comparisons: your 'special' MM/MC phono-line-pre used.
Without having the ability to change input impedance from stock/standard 47k, to 75k or better 100k, and variations in capacitive loading (using silver mica non-magnectic capacitors et al, I'm sure you are) it may just result in a rather different results?
I start to come to the conclusion, that a good MC stage and simple resistive loading (by switch, jumper 'mouse-piano', or a good R) seems simpler, while having a more 'current' type phono-stage (MOSTLY targeted for MC use)
Would you agree with that?
I mean, that is of course only the case until we have decided to on one of your 3160s... :-)
A. |
Raul, yes, B U T most of these main-line pres simply use more C (150 - 500pF) to shunt (suck-out) MM treble resonance.
As Kirkus (I think) also mentioned, it is BETTER to use higher input impedance to do the job.
If loading that MM with a '~ cheap' C it will not sound as good as going into 100k, right?
Now use a 'good' MC/MM pre (all-in-one-mom) and then try replicate your Hi-End MC cart vs. MM cart test. Load that MM ~ (no higher impedance available 9/10) - what will you get?
I'd be little surprised that MC will outperform the MM, that's what I'm getting at. So, we need to use apples and apples and not apples and bananas, no. Just awareness, is all. A. |