Jcarr
Thank you for the informative post. I am interested in your view on cantilever flex on eccentric records. My experience with a tangential air bearing tone, the Eminent Technology ET2, is that even with the horizontal mass reduced significantly by using a totally decoupled counterweight ( in the horizontal plane ) I can observe the cantilever flexing back and forth as the arm moves in and out. I have observed the same phenomena with conventional pivoted arms including my Naim Aro, Dynavector 501 and FR64. An argument has been put forward that because the frequency of oscillation navigating the eccentric record is so low, that the cantilever and arm move as one and the cantilever does not flex. Kuzma uses this for his rationale on employing a very high mass arm. Bruce Thigpen has stated this would defy physics. My own physical observations with low compliance MC's ( Koetsu Black, Denon 103 Garrott among others suggests lateral flex occurs when playing eccentric records. What is your view or experience on this. |
Hi Fleib: Cartridge suspensions should only allow vertical, horizontal and 45-degree flexing modes, but in reality nearly all cartridge suspensions also allow twisting, and if a given suspension doesn't contain a tension wire, fore-aft motion as well.
If you measure crosstalk on an oscilloscope using a test LP, you will see that it causes the test signal waveform to break apart and spreads the sections over both channels rather than one. Breaking a waveform apart is never a good idea for sonics, since doing so generates high-order distortion products which are unpleasant to the ear. For this reason I consider cartridge crosstalk to be a type of distortion, rather than merely a channel separation problem.
No matter how rigid the cantilever and secure the the stylus tip mount, the flexible nature of the cantilever suspension allows the cantilever and stylus to rotate as a unit, leading to worsened crosstalk. As opposed to normal crosstalk which is due to misalignment of generator and stylus, crosstalk such as this is dynamic in nature, and increases and decreases as the LP groove modulations rise and fall.
Therefore, although a cartridge with a lurking dynamic crosstalk issue will probably measure OK and sound OK on simple music, on big orchestra peaks, congestion and imaging problems may occur.
The farther the stylus protrudes from the centerline of the cantilever, the more effective it is as a crank, making it easier for the LP groove to twist the cantilever and generator around (with the suspension acting as the pivot). A very short stylus reduces the level-dependent twisting effects by being less effective as a crank. At the other end of the cantilever, a large surface-area boss (typical of many MCs and the Audio-Technica MMs), combined with a large diameter damping system will act in a similar manner as a disc brake, reducing cantilever and generator twisting.
Although not much can be done with rigid cantilevers (sapphire, boron, diamond etc.) to reduce the twisting effects other than shortening the distance that the stylus protrudes from the cantilever centerline, it is possible to design an alloy tube cantilever to circumvent this effect - if the cantilever is made with a kink in it (corresponding to the VTA angle) which starts to bend a little farther back than is normal for alloy tube cantilevers, the patch where the stylus contacts the LP groove can be placed directly on the cantilever longitudinal axis. This avoids the dynamic crosstalk issue by removing the crank effect of the stylus.
In more ways than one, it is easier to make a high-quality phono cartridge when the cantilever is made from a ductile material rather than the rigid, brittle materials that are commonly viewed as "better". Rigid cantilever materials have no "give", meaning that the slot, hole or surface for the stylus mounting must be made larger than the stylus, and this necessary oversizing forces the mounting tolerances to be poorer. A ductile cantilever material can be fitted with an undersized mounting hole so that the stylus is press-fit into place, and this will help keep the position (front-to-back, side-to-side) and angle (azimuth, SRA) of the stylus closer to the intent of the cartridge designer. And since the ductile cantilever can be bent without damage during forming, it is possible to cancel out some of the geometrical effects that would otherwise occur (per the above paragraph).
Returning to rigid cantilevers, please look at this.
www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-3en.pdf
If you compare the photo of Technics cantilever to the cantilever cross-section drawing in the Accuphase AC-3 pdf, the Accuphase drawing suggests that the contact point between stylus and LP groove was kept closer to the center axis of the cantilever, and it also shows that the stylus block passes through both upper and lower cantilever walls, which should help keep consistent stylus mounting accuracy.
This doesn't mean that a long stylus only has downsides to - it confers advantages as well. A longer stylus makes it feasible to reduce the cantilever length (for a given cantilever rake angle), so if the designer's top priority is to reduce cantilever length, a longer stylus (and/or higher cantilever rake angle) will be effective.
Most notably, a longer stylus will be far more resistant to jamming due to dirt accumulation than a shorter stylus would be, and this is important for a volume-sales product that may see a fair amount of casual use. Back when Lyra was making cartridges with 0.06x0.06mm stylii (smaller than what is on the Technics, and up there with the Denon DL-1000A), we'd get back cartridges where the user claimed that the stylus was broken off. In many cases, the stylus was intact and perfectly fine - it was simply that the tiny stylus size made it prone to vanish in accumulated dirt, and once that happened, the cartridge wouldn't play - the cantilever would just slide across the LP as though the stylus was missing.
Here is also a link for the AC-1 pdf. You can see how it used an alloy tubular cantilever which was bent into shape (although for crosstalk purposes it would have been better if the bend started a little further back).
www.accuphase.com/cat/ac-1en.pdf
FWIW, tubular cantilevers are not more rigid than rod cantilevers of the same material, unless the outer diameter of the tubular cantilever is larger than the OD of the rod cantilever. But a larger OD will cause the stylus to protrude by a greater distance from the cantilever centerline, which we have seen is a disadvantage when it comes to crosstalk.
Finally, allow me to point out that most design choices in a phono cartridge bring side-effects. Very few design choices only confer advantages with no negatives. As one example, it is no accident that the great majority of phono cartridges ever made have converged on a cantilever length of around 6mm. Any designer can specify a shorter cantilever, but doing so brings direct and indirect performance penalties which need to be carefully considered, and doing so also inevitably forces design work-arounds in various areas which may upset the balance of the design as a whole.
On a different topic, here is an online simulation tool for RLC circuits.
http://sim.okawa-denshi.jp/en/RLCtool.php
It allows for the user to enter their own values for resistance, capacitance and inductance (thereby making it feasible to do a simple electrical modeling of an MM, MI or MC phono cartridge), and it can show the phase response, step response, overshoot and other parameters in addition to the frequency response. This is a nice tool to complement Jim Hagerman's cartridge loading page, to get a better idea of phono cartridge behavior in the electrical domain.
Hope this was of interest.
kind regards, jonathan |
Lewm, I would send it back to Soundsmith to make sure all is well with the cartridge. If it is OK, then tweak away at getting it to sound right. If you still don't like it, sell or stomp on it. |
Hi Jcarr,
My response to this following statement about the 305MC seems controversial and I wanted to comment further:
"Comparing the stylus to the cantilever on the Technics suggests that the stylus is
v-e-r-y long, and has an ample cross-section (at least 0.12mm by 0.12mm by the looks of it), both of which will add to tip mass. I would expect inferior high-frequency crosstalk performance from this design in comparison to Denon's DL-1000A, as the Technic's extra-long stylus will allow the LP groove to twist the generator torsionally in addition to the normal 45-45 motions."
I think, if the cantilever is very rigid and the tip is overly long and the tip mount rigidity is suspect, then it would be the tip that would tend to rotate and not the cantilever. Use of the phrase "twist the generator torsionally" implies the cantilever.
I'm not saying this is a good thing and perhaps it's not what you meant, but that's how I read it.
Regards, |
Will not raise VTF until I've spoken to Peter.
Would in any case raise VTF by 0.1g increments from the present 1.6g. |
I will throw caution in the air if you try raising the VTF to 2.0g. Be very careful because if the LC tip was put wrongly you could cause damage to the cartridge. |
FWIW, I did play with VTA/SRA, to no obvious avail. There were slight differences but no real "cure" to the problem.
The sound quality is a bit reminiscent of what happens with low VTF. So it might be worthwhile to try raising up to 2.0g. |
Lew,
I guess you have your answer regarding tip suitability. A line contact will tend to be more sensitive to SRA, depending on the minor radius or the width of the side contacting the groove. Micro styli are usually even more sensitive. They often have a smaller side profile and even greater vertical contact.
If you're so inclined I think you ought to try 2.0g. Normally with a new cantilever/tip max VTF is recommended, at least at first. If you still can't get it to sound right get in touch with Peter. He's a great guy and stands behind his work. If he makes and sells a whole new stylus assembly, I think he'll be able to figure it out.
Regards, |
I have SS's $500 turn-key F9 assembly that includes extruded alum holder, new-production suspension, ruby cantilever, and OCL stylus. It's been awhile since I've had it mounted, but I recall that it sounded great with no anomalies. Maybe this a good time to revisit it. SS recommended 1.5gm VTF. |
Lew, a few years ago I had my F9-E Ruby "re-tipped" by Peter. I chose his $250 ruby-cantilevered "contact line" option. That was prior to his introduction of additional options specifically for the F9, which btw (in response to one of your questions) include elliptical profile/aluminum cantilevered choices, at low cost. Right from the get-go it was apparent that Peter's $250 ruby CL retip resulted in better sound than I had ever heard in my system previously. The most notable improvement being better harmonic balance in the treble region, particularly evident on well recorded classical piano music. I've been using the cartridge in a vintage Magnepan Unitrac arm, with VTF set at 2.0 grams. Also, I recall member Mofimadness providing glowingly positive comments about the same $250 F9 retip option. His comments were one of the two reasons I made that choice, rather than opting for the $350 "optimized contour" CL version. The other reason is that I had some concern (pretty much just based on intuition) that the "optimized contour," described as "closely resembling the actual cutting stylus," would cause VTA/SRA to become more critical than I would prefer. I am pretty much a set it and forget it type when it comes to VTA/SRA. Hope that helps. Best regards, -- Al |
|
Dear Lew, I own the Grace F9e. Like by Technics U 205 mk3 the cantilever is fastened or centered with an tension wire in its cantilever holder. This kind of cantilever and suspension is irreparable. My Technics stylus was ok but the suspension was defective. Axel nor Andy were able to fix the problem. But if your suspension is ok and there is this pipe behind your cantilever one new cantllever/stylus combo should be possible to fit in. My sample has aluminum cantilever and I see no 'pipe' behind the cantilever. So my sample can't be repaired because there is no way to put a new cantilever in place of the old one. To do this one would need the right cantilever with provision for
the tension wire, tension wire and fastening screw or glue for the fastening of the tension wire at the end of the cantilever holder. |
Dear Nandric, This particular Grace Ruby I bought from someone on eBay for a low price. The price was low, because it was completely lacking ANY cantilever, and of course therefore it lacked any stylus. By inspection, it appeared as if someone had taken a tweezers and simply yanked the cantilever out of the red carrier that inserts into the main body of the cartridge. However, the cartridge body itself was in brand new condition, as was the red removable assembly. It seemed as if this vandalism was performed neatly and before the cartridge had ever been used. I can only wonder whether the virtues of the Grace elliptical cartridges (the Ruby, the F9E) hinge upon the use of an elliptical stylus. So far, I cannot recommend an LC stylus for this guy.
Fleib, can you think of a reason for my finding, i.e., do the electrical characteristics of a particular MM determine in any way its particular suitability for stylus shape? We do know that the cartridges made for quadraphonic tend to use Shibata or closely related stylus shapes. Perhaps it was a bad idea in the first place to put an LC stylus onto an "elliptical" cartridge. |
Dear Lew, I re-tipped just one of my MM carts but many of
my MC carts. The one was Goldring 800 one of the carts of
the month. When I inspected Axel's work I was surprised to
see how this is done. The new cantilever/stylus combo was
put and gluead in the remainder of the old (original) cantilever.
Think of the (ususal) one piece cantilever in
an MM stylus holder. I think that the end of the cantilever
is soldered at the end of its holder. In contradistinction
to the MM kind by the MC's there is this 'joint pipe' as Jcarr
called the thing. On this ,uh, 'pipe' the cantilever, the coils
(bobbin), the suspension and the tension wire are fastened,
By the usual retip the old cantilever is removed
(with some solvent) and the new cantilever/stylus combo put
and glued in this 'pipe'. This retip method is obviously
more easy to do then the 'real retip' by which the new
stylus is gluead in the old cantilever. That is why
the 'real' retip is more expensive. However not all MM
carts are as I just described. My ADC TRX for example has
also a kind of 'pipe' behind the cantilever. My guess then
is that MM carts with exotic cantilevers can't be soldered
at their end like aluminum kind. So some kind of 'pipe'
behind those cantilevers may be neccesary. I hope this is
the case with your Ruby. I was so disappointed with my
Goldring re-tip as well with Raul's 'refreshment' of MM
carts that I decided never to do this again with my MM carts.
Regarding your question. I have seen fantastic work done by
Torlai (Italy; www.torlai.it) and Dominic from Northwest
in the UK that I can recommend both. Axel accepted so much
work so he has no time to read and answer emails so
misunderstanding and errors are unavoidable. I am truly
sorry to say this but the truth should be served.
Kind regards for my English teacher, |
The Supex SM-100 eliptical gives the grace 9E a run for it's money. |
Hi Tim, I do plan to call SS one of these days, after I gather a bit more information.
Audpulse, I certainly will do as you suggest, mount the Grace LC in some other of my too many tonearms. But I had wondered whether someone here could point to the DV505 as being a mismatch for the SS LC stylus, for some obscure reason. Apparently not.
Fleib, I had a lot of prior experience with my OEM Grace Ruby in this very exact same set-up; it sounds divine. I need to go back to it for reference, though, because it is possible that the Acutex sounds even better. This is my Beveridge system. The Bev speakers will reveal differences equivalent to the difference in comfort level achieved by inserting a pea under a dozen mattresses, and I'm no princess.
Nandric, Do you know of anyone who can re-tip with ruby/sapphire cantilever and elliptical stylus or something closer to elliptical geometry? |
Lew,
Have you used your other Ruby on the 505?
Compliance should be the same as original, unless Soundsmith also worked on the suspension. Max VTF is 2.0g?
Unless specifically told otherwise, I'd increase VTF. Too little can cause loss of bass and momentary mistracking.
I had a DL304 with a broken cantilever. It went to Soundsmith for a level 2 (same) and came back an entirely different cart. It had detail and high frequency resolution it never had before, but it was also extremely sensitive to VTA/SRA. That cart comes with an aluminum cantilever and a special elliptical tip, so it was a more radical change.
Speaking of VTA, have you tried different arm heights? The angle of the stylus with respect to the cantilever might have changed. I'd try it at 2g or close to it and adjust arm height like it's a new cart. Good luck.
Regards, |
Lewn, why not try the cart in a different tonearm. |
Hi Lew, I've also experienced an issue with something returned but not checked out in a timely fashion. That can create problems.
But I believe SS is pretty straight forward in their dealings so I would explain the situation to them, just as you have here. See what he says about break-in time or other possible reasons.
Good luck. |
Fleib, Your revelations re-enforce my belief in subjective judgement.
I have an issue for the group: About 6 months ago, I had a Grace Ruby re-tipped by SS using their top of the line LC stylus/ruby cantilever. I only started to audition it about a month or two ago. Initially, my impression was that it lacked some of the endearing qualities of my other Grace Ruby sample, which still bears its original elliptical stylus. At that stage, the Grace LC seemed to "highlight" treble detail a bit excessively, whereas the original Ruby has excellent tonal balance. But the initial listening to the Ruby LC was otherwise promising, in that I figured the very slight tendency to sound shrill would abate with further break-in. Sadly, that has not been the case; it's gotten much worse, to the point where I wondered whether something else in my system might be to blame for "the problem". So, two days ago, I replaced the Ruby LC with my Acutex LPM320, the sound of which I know quite well. The Acutex sounds wonderful in the same system, better than the Ruby LC in every way. This is all done in a Dynavector DV505 tonearm with DV headshell, which I fully admit might be too high in mass for the Grace, but it does not seem too high in mass for the Acutex. I am wondering whether the Grace just needs further break-in (it has about 20-30 hours on it), or the tonearm is a mismatch for the SS LC compliance, or the VTF is not good for the modified Grace. (I am running both cartridges at 1.6gm.)
Any thoughts or comments are appreciated. Has anyone else had any experience with the SS Ruby LC re-tip? This is in no way to cast any aspersions on SS. We need them. Most people gush over their re-tips, as well. If you're wondering, it is my best recollection that SS recommended VTF = 1.5gm for this cantilever/stylus. I do mean to check that to be sure.
As to the contretemps between Nandric and Fleib, don't fight guys. IMO it is impossible to "prove" by empiric argument that MC is better than MM or vice-versa. |
Jcarr,
The Hi Fi news group test looks suspicious. All of the carts have a sharp roll-off at 15KHz ? I think not.
A few years ago Werner Ogiers EE, stated the frequency sweep on that record and Analog Productions are inaccurate.
I don't know if they're inaccurate in the same way. Other tests of some of those same carts don't agree with the results.
I think this was the same test lab (Miller) that tested the Concerto. Maybe it made it look worse than it was, but that one was defective and rolled-off at 10KHz.
Regards, |
|
Dear Jcarr, The Dutch saying is: 'measuring is knowing'. To my surprise there is no English equivalent. The English version is: 'numbers tell the tell'. I wish you wrote this
post as contribution to my 'identity conundrum' (grin). Fleib would agree with any of your statemens as he disagrees with any I make. The old European 'theory' of truth was 'veritas est auctoritas'. Everything that Aristoteles has written was true a priori for 2000 years. Well in some sense I would say: 'comrades watch out what you say Jcarr is watching'(grin,grin). Jcarr is our ultimate authority in cart questions. My assumption
was based on Popper's so called 'objective knowledge'. I myself am very proud about my capability to check the coils with my Voltmeter (digital one for $20). But the difficulties or rather so many variables involved by measuring carts that you mentioned are not 'subjective' or depending from your own preference . My point was
to separate subjective from the objective part in our forum so that no confusion between them should occur again. I was very optimistic I think.
Kind regards, |
Hello Nandric:
>everyone who can check the data with measuring instruments should get the same result. That is why such data are considered to be objective.
This assumption may be suspect with phono cartridges, inasmuch as various measurable parameters such as frequency response, crosstalk, distortion, tracking etc. change with ambient temperature, humidity, even the LP groove radius (of the test track). Different test LPs will also show different things. Obviously loading will also alter the frequency response, if the cartridge has high inductance.
As an example, the following downloadable links show how different people can come up with different measurements for the same cartridges.
http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/vinyl-lp/25-cartridges/86-ortofon-cadenza-blue-a-bronze-mc.html?showall=1
http://www.bm.rs/Micro%20Benz/Benz%20Micro%20Ace%20-%20HiFi%20News%20July%202012.pdf
http://www.fastaudio.com/workspace/uploads/downloads/stp_08_10_sd_tonabnehmer.pdf
The Ortofon Cadenza Red is measured by Stereoplay and HiFi News, while the Ortofon Cadenza Blue is measured by Stereoplay and HiFi World, so these are the obvious models to compare.
HiFi News' measurements of the ultra-short-cantilevered Dynavector Karat 17D3 may also be interesting to some.
Special kudos to HiFi World for acknowledging that frequency response changes with LP groove radius. Wish that they would do the same with ambient temperature.
At the same time, keep in mind that various things that affect the sound of a cartridge are level-dependent (one of the things that I was alluding to previously when I pointed out the length of the Technics EPC-305MC's stylus), and may therefore not be easy to measure with most test LPs - although this does not reduce their audibility.
Regarding coil impedance, my general experience is that the fewer the components comprising the coil bobbin, and the fewer the number of coil layers, the more consistent the coil shape and impedance will be. Using more components for the coil bobbin (as in a laminated coil) increases the likelihood of bobbin mis-shaping and non-flat surfaces, while each coil layer added results in a less flat surface for the next coil layer to be wound onto.
kind regards, |
Finally, a brand new factory elliptical stylus for my Supex SM Moving Magnet!!!! Yes Supex MM. The Master Sugano strayed from the path on this one. More later. |
Nandric,
I've read a couple of posts before about carts deviating from published specs. Kiddman mentioned a large premium brand deviating 30% on cart impedance. The implication was, this is a regular occurrence, although he didn't say that in so many words. He also mentioned wild deviations in amplitude response, specifically a rise of 8dB by 14KHz.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of these posts mention brands. If someone measures carts professionally, that could be for legal reasons. The offending company could be their client and it would hardly be in their interest to name names. John Curl didn't mention what carts he was using to test. The Concerto with a misaligned tip could be a defective one that slipped by? A cart like that would probably be replaced by the dealer and sent back to the manufacturer, but what if you bought it used? I don't think it's unlikely that someone would buy it new and eventually decide they didn't like it and sell it, not realizing it was defective. The reviewer said it was a rock cart and seemed to think that was the way it was supposed to be.
While no cart is perfect and no two channels are perfectly matched, tolerance defines the realm of acceptable deviation. While 30% difference in resistance is unacceptable, what's acceptable, 5% ?
Because the output is so little on a LOMC, it's harder to approach perfection. Any small deviation will result in a greater percentage of difference. I would think that's a big part of the price tag.
Some companies are known for consistency and some of them had certain problems a couple of times which they rectified. Dynevector had a batch of 10X5 that had the channels mislabeled so it was out of phase with itself. The same thing happened in the '80s with the 10X4. I had one of these and couldn't understand why it had no bass. This is an entry level cart and it might have been a subcontractor mistake, but sheet happens. AFAIK, Dynevector is otherwise said to be very consistent in QC.
If anyone has anything to add to this dissertation, please do.
Regards, |
Hi all, In this thread I come a new punctuation sign across
and am wondering about its, uh, meaning. Lew was always
willing to explain to me rare English expressions so
I hope he will continue to do so. But my guess is that
'some' of our members used up all his question marks and
invented a new sign instead. This sign look to me like a
hammer but there is no such sign on my laptop. This sign
is obviously invented to make some point(s). Four of them
in a row to make some strong point more of them to
prove some point. But this is only my guess and I hope that
my 'Engish teacher' will explain if this guess make any sense? |
Fleib, We express our preferences with 'value judgments'. Everyone is free to chose his owm poison. This is also called 'subjective valuation'. As far as I know nobody question this fact. Such statements are not 'true' or 'false'. Aka the truth values (true or false) are not involved. However we also want to explain the 'why' question and then use technical terminology with objective data as 'proof'. What does this eman? Well everyone who can check the data with measuring instruments should get the same result. That is why such data are considered to be objective. This of course also apply for the deviations in comparison with published specs. If there are deviations those can be also measured such that we get the same result or the same measured values. Such data are also used to explain the difference (in genaral) between the MM and MC carts. But, alas, the aim is to 'prove' which kind is 'better'. That is how the subjective and objective parts of our hobby are confused or conflated. The reason is ,uh, human: "I don't understand why the Arabs like fat women''. |
Nandric, This is a quote:
"I quoted your own statements. If I 'mistate' what you have stated you should say so and correct my quotation with your 'real statements'. I stated that your statements are contradictory while your other statements were insinuations about my assumed character based on two carts which 'proved' my preference for the 'romantic' carts while two 'identical carts' proved that I collect carts like (kids) trains."
Those are your exact words (above). You haven't quoted what I wrote. Instead you incorrectly paraphrase. You have me making insinuations about your character when no such insinuations are made. I don't think cart preference has anything to do with one's character. I already explained that. If you think I was mistaken, why don't you say so?
I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other, but apparently you do.
The 7500 and 980 are identical models. The specs, output, resistance, inductance and body are identical. The stylus holder is different. That has nothing to do with tolerances or deviation from specs.
The lab report on the Clearaudio Concerto that I linked to looked like it deviated greatly from specs. There was a sharp roll-off at 10KHz and the report said the diamond was misaligned by 10°.
You're taking statements out of context.
"My analogy between a library and and an cart collection induced you to make the most strenge comment I have ever seen. In America nobody needs his own library because the books collections are in the public library. You missed totaly my intention."
I didn't miss your point, and everyone has seen your collection. Apparently you missed my point. You don't necessarily have to own a particular cart to know what it sounds like. I owned a Kisiki. I also owned a TK10ML2. I regret selling the Signet. It was a long time ago and I don't think I had enough hours on it.
Does that disqualify me from participating here? You probably have some carts you haven't played in years.
You talk about logic but seem to miss the distinction between models, specs and deviation from specs. They're different things. That's why I suggested comparing them with the same stylus. I thought it might be interesting. This continued exchange is tedious.
Regards, |
Fleib, I quoted your own statements. If I 'mistate' what you have stated you should say so and correct my quotation with your 'real statements'. I stated that your statements are contradictory while your other statements were insinuations about my assumed character based on two carts which 'proved' my preference for the 'romantic' carts while two 'identical carts' proved that I collect carts like (kids) trains. My analogy between a library and and an cart collection induced you to make the most strenge comment I have ever seen. In America nobody needs his own library because the books collections are in the public library. You missed totaly my intention. My list with carts was meant to show more than Kiseki Goldspot and Miyabi so the members could see which carts I own and make their own conclusion about my preferences . Your method of discussion is the old one. Build a strow man of your opponent and beat him to death. This however is very difficult if one has no idea about the (modern) logic. Then your suggestion that I should compare my Pickering 7500 which is identical according to you with my Stanton 980 LZs make no logical sense. If they are identical as you think they are then they should sound identical. Your problems with logic are obvious by any sentence you made. |
Does anyone have any experience with the Audio Note iQ-3 cartridge? |
Nandric, Once again you misstate what I say, and in this case respond to part of what I say. Perhaps you don't believe Kiddman or doubt John Curl ever said that about MCs?
Well he did, but I'm not going to hunt for the quote.
The pertinent part here is size - percentage of the total. A small discrepancy in high output cart has relatively little affect compared to a low output.
I never said one was identical and the other isn't, but you have me saying that. You seem to be trying to turn this into a logical argument about absolutes, but you're assuming a premise not stated. Not all MCs deviate from specs like some others, and most MMs are imperfect.
It's a matter of degree. Did you look at the lab report I linked to about the Clearaudio Concerto? It was horrendously bad, a defective cart for $3K. I don't know how typical this is of Concerto, but the implication was of a rolled off response at 10KHz.
Have you ever compared the 980LZ to the 7500? You can use the same stylus on both. It would be interesting to see if there's a difference, more interesting than this back and forth.
Regards, |
|
Fleib, 'there are no identical carts' and 'there are identical carts' are contradictory. That is to say that logicaly both can't be true. Your way out is the assumption that MM carts are, uh, 'more identical' because their coils are made with machines. So you are obviously ill informed. The whole story about the Kiseki MC carts started with some Japanese who invented such machine and made Kiseki carts.
Then Dominic from Northwest Analogue uses such machine and is one of the few who is willing to repair broken coils. On his site one can see this machine. I think that you have heard about J. Allearts during your uh, professionall life. All his carts are hand made. But if one look at their specs one will not believe that any machine can produce such carts. Besides each cart has its own identity which should be mentioned on the bill. Two carts may have equal specs but this does not meen that they are identical. Without identity we would be not able to find anything. Identity is not about language or names but objects themselfs. That is why people with different languages and names are able to find and refer to the same objects as we do with other names. |
Nandric,
In Americia, even when we were young there were such things as public libraries. You didn't have to own a particular book to read it.
Moving coils are much more susceptible to large variations in output with a small change in coil size or magnet strength. If there's a 5mm discrepancy in wire length, it will have more affect on a coil with 12 turns of wire than one with 2500 turns. That's why major manufacturer MMs are much more likely to be within a small percentage of specs. Not so much for MCs, depending on the manufacturer.
Here's what Kiddman had to say about it:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1392385752&openfrom&1&4#1
"Come on, nearly all of these manufacturers make up the specs. Measuring lots and lots of high end analog, I've found the specs are dreams and wishes. MC's that show flat but have a rise of 8db by 14khz. Turntables that quote .01% wow + flutter but are really .3%."
"I've measured, using state of the art equipoment (with AC test signal, the only way to do it right) 30% differences in impedance with some brands. Yes, "mass produced" ones, if you can call the bigger premium MC makers "mass produced".
A few manufacturers are quite consistent, and very consistent in sound. And with many manufacturers, I've never heard 2 sound close to identical, tested one right after the other"
Kiddman isn't John Curl. Curl is a famous electronics designer who designed the Vendetta phono stage. He made the statement on DIY audio that he couldn't find two MCs of the same model that sound alike.
Neither one was talking about MMs.
Stanton and Pickering were sister companies and there are duplications in some models. The two we're talking about were TOTL models. Although they are low output, tolerances were checked. The 1 designation on the last Stanton digit is testing and matching to a stylus, like the 20SS is a matched 15SS.
I think this is about more than characterizing your MC carts as romantic. You haven't disputed that, only my credentials. I wasn't aware I needed credentials. It's about how much money is currently invested in carts? I can answer that for you no problem. As little as possible and still get great results. I wouldn't trade my 1000 for any of your MCs except maybe the 88D, but I listen mostly to MMs now. I'm with Halcro on this and I suspect that's what you don't like.
Peace,
|
Fleib, There is this silly joke 'about' Peter: 'would you like a book for your birthday Peter?' Peter: 'No thanks I already own one.'
I used the analogy with a library to make my point. An eloquent person can make some conclusion about the owner by looking at his book-collection. Fleib's conlusion about my cart collection is:
'look he owns the Pickering 7500 and Stanton 980 LZ without knowing that those are THE SAME-IDENTICAl'. Ergo:' he collects carts like model trains or beseball cards'.
Remarcable capability to conclude from two samples of what ever. Kiseki and Miyaby are sufficient to conclude the preference for 'romantic sounding carts'. Two other samples
to conclude what kind of collector I am.
But in the same post, only two sentences or so further we see his quotation of some HIFI authority with the bold statement that there are no 'identical' carts even by the
same carts(aka with the same name). Both have obviously no idea what identity relation means and consequently use the expression as they like. There is, alas, no such thing in logic. Like it or not the logic is the same for all of us. The way out is to use the expression 'equal' instead of identical to avoid (logical)trouble. As Wittgenstein put it: 'for two things to say that they are identical make no sense'. The so called 'substitutio salva veritate' means that we can substitute one name for some other with the same reference without changing the truth value of the same statement. Say Vienna for Wien or Wenen,etc.
But to strangthen his conclusions Fleib like to mention: Nandric is a lawyer you know.... Need I say more? Well I would not call insinuations 'valid arguments'. Those say
more about Fleib than about Nandric. Working in a HIFI shop is not an adequate 'armament' for all purposes. |
Nandric, "However he assumed that I wanted to show off with my collection and was not willing to 'disclose' his own except one single MC cart. From this fact it follows that his judgments about MC carts in general are based on induction and not deduction from wahtever general empirical statement. For such purpose one needs at least two MC carts (grin)."
I told you I sell the ones I'm not interested in perusing. I've sold all the MCs except the 1000. That includes the Kisiki, Koetsu, Sumikos, etc. Does that disqualify me from commenting?
I was a high end turntable guy at the busiest US high end store at the time. I set-up and tweaked tables all day long and often after work I would go to customer's homes and tweak their tables. I became familiar with a wide range of carts I never owned. I don't comment about carts I'm unfamiliar with.
What does this have to do with anything? You seem to equate the number of carts currently owned with credibility. Like a subjective reviewer blowing smoke up some manufacturer's ass, it might not have much to do with reality. In the past I gave Raul his due for starting this thread, but that doesn't mean he knows how to load a MM.
In the past couple of years I've come to appreciate MMs much more. At this time I have no desire to buy some overpriced MC. MM coils are wound on a machine and sample to sample variation tends to be less than handmade MCs. John Curl said he couldn't find two samples of a MC that were the same. So rest assured the reviewer's cart is probably different from the one you buy.
The term romantic was referring to your cart preference, not you. But you know this. You're using your slickster lawyer skill to turn it into something else.
This thread was more interesting when it was about MM/MI. Maybe we have gone through almost all the great MMs, but the rankings skewered results and I suspect there's more to talk about.
Regards,
|
Dear Acman, Banquo and Harold......
I think you'll find it illuminating when you experiment with dropping the Resistance......sometimes greatly...😜🎼🎶
And don't be afraid to keep changing it (if it's easily done with your phonostages?).....as it is not a 'sacred' thing...🔓🔑
It also helps if you are able to adjust the capacitance as well...❓
As Fleib has noted.....I remember about 10-15 years ago when there were many new phonostages being introduced which were MC only 👀😖⁉️
It demonstrates well...I suspect...that many designers did not understand or appreciate the intrinsic nature of the MM cartridge? And to this day of course.....most 'serious' designers and audiophiles are under the delusion of the superiority of the MC genus 🙈🙉🙊💤❓
I was blissfully unaware of the importance of loading for MMs when I purchased my Halcro DM10 7 years ago...but I was lucky that Bruce Halcro Candy was serious about it when he designed infinitely variable Resistance and Capacitance controls solely for the MM inputs.....with a fixed 220 Ohms resistance for MCs....😍👍👏
Since that time of course....through Forums like this and knowledgable contributors....new phonostages are becoming available with adjustable loadings. Strangely though.....many more loading options are being offered for the MC inputs than the MMs 😰......a waste of time and space IMHO 👀❓
It goes to show that still today.....many designers do not truly understand or appreciate the requirements of the glorious MM cartridge? |
Banquo, Congrats on the new preamp. Very interesting device.
Let´s hope you´ll get it soon. Hardly can wait for your reviews. |
Thanks Halcro and Fleib. Great ! I followed Raul´s suggestion for higher impedance blindly and just recently let my hi-fi specialist change the input value from 47K to 100K. What a fool I was. The sound became considerably brighter and also somewhat odd otherwise. It was a step backwards and time to learn something new. We must bear in mind that Raul the Great Searcher started this thread and his experiences/opinions are significant nevertheless.
Fortunately my preamp has 20K. Very interesting how my current MM candidate will performs with 40 pF and 20K.
The search for the right (impedance) values has started again. I got a funny feeling that this thread will go on and on and on... |
Dear Acman, There are value judgements and there are factual statements. Only the later can be true or false.
We all reason in the same way but our assumptions can be different. The logic is about deduction. That is to say that deduced statments are true if the premisses are true otherwise false. In the 'old vocabulary' judgments, statements, propositions and sentences were considered to be the same,uh, entity. At present the term 'sentences' is preferred above the other, uh, 'names'.
But in our discussions we also want to explain the 'why question' and then need scientific arguments to make some sense. So, for example, Lew is not questioning Fleib's 'values' but his assumptions about the actual working of the tubes in a phono-pre. I.e. he disagrees with Fleib's assertions in this context.
Fleib 'in the other side' assumes that I am a'romatic' kind of a person while he 'deduced' his valuation from my own value judgments about two carts: Kiseki goldspot and Miyabi. Well I own and love some other carts also so I posted a list with my selected carts of both kinds. Someting like 'show me the books in your library' so I can see what your,uh, 'flovour' is. However he assumed that I wanted to show off with my collection and was not willing to 'disclose' his own except one single MC cart. From this fact it follows that his judgments about MC carts in general are based on induction and not deduction from wahtever general empirical statement. For such purpose one needs at least two MC carts (grin).
|
Nice post, Halcro. The discussion is timely for me. After 3 years of unfulfilled desire, I finally pulled the trigger on a phono stage with variable loading. In particular, this one. I bought it especially for my current favorite cartridge, the victor x-1/2, the recommended loading for which is 47-100kohm. Also influenced by Raul (can I speak his name or is the self-appointed sheriff going to admonish me?), I had a serious hankering to try it at 100kohms. Now that you assert that MM's tend to sound better at lower values, I'll be sure to try those out as well. In conjunction with all the 'knobs' on my technics arm, the Sony's knobs are a tweaker's heaven--or a virtual nightmare when one just wants to sit back and relax. ...I am speaking prematurely as there is still ample time for USPS to lose my package :(. |
Fleib, You wrote, "maybe any tube on the input would have far too much capacitance for a MM anyway". Can you amplify (no pun intended) on that statement? Sure, tubes present a capacitive input because of the Miller effect, but since the beginning of analog time, some of the greatest (and in my opinion, most of the greatest) MM stages use tubes in their RIAA phono section. If one knows what the input capacitance will be, one can design around that parameter to make the tube work with MM cartridges. But in fact, one of the virtues of a cascode, as used in the MP1, is the cancellation of the Miller effect. Transistors have input capacitance too, by the way, and it's more problematic for the designer but for reasons I no longer recall. So, in sum, Ralph's preamp in stock form will not have an issue with capacitance, because the input voltage amplifier stage is a cascode. But you're right, it is designed with medium output MCs in mind. (Around 0.4 to 0.6mV, I think.) Mine now has much more gain than stock. Wish I could find an Ortofon MC2000.
My MM phono is a much modified Silvaweld SWH550. I made no changes to the power supply, which is tube-rectified and choke-loaded and tube-regulated, out of the box. I made changes in the RIAA section but only to maximize the sonics, not to change the RIAA filters. I also own a Klyne 6LX/P. Stan Klyne upgraded the phono section in it, but not to his highest spec. At this point, I would say that the Silvaweld has an edge over the Klyne for MM cartridges. The Klyne is serving as linestage for the Silvaweld on MMs.
Nandric, I modified my MP1 about 5 years ago, have not tinkered with it since. In fact, I have reached where I want to be in audio; I am very happy with what I have and don't want anything more or "better". I just want more time to listen. |
|
Jcarr, Your contributions are always welcome and appreciated here. I do admit most of the conversation is over my head, but I always leaned something. I realize your abilities make you a target for people trying to boost their ego. It is probably hard to just have fun on a thread, when you are down deep an enthusiast like us. Again Thanks! |
Nandric, those are very good cartridges, which most of us have never heard. I agree that Raul's tenacity in finding new carts was amazing and is missed. The 100k on every cart was always in question, as 47k is sometimes a bit bright to my ears. He was always good for a rabbit chase, 2 subwoofers, distortion, and the way he could tell what a system sounded like from a continent away
I have only the Sony 44l and Mit1 on the MC front. I have not been able to hear the Mit1 yet, and am glad to hear from you, Don, and Halcro that it is a keeper. I am using a sut at this time. I love my preamp, so this is best, for me, for now. I am thinking about trying the EMT line. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
I have a lot of the same MM's minus the Glanz's. I have enjoyed all the cartridges at 47K, but will drop some down to lower Resistance as Halcro recommends. Thanks Henry for the information.
I love all my MC and MM children equally. |
Nandric,
In a word, no. You want to have a pissing contest? Buy a race horse.
You seem to equate money invested - accumulated carts with expertise/discernment. If there's any such relationship it tends to be an inverse relationship.
I don't collect carts like that. I have about a half dozen at any one time. I sell the ones I'm not interested in perusing and I've sold a few I wish I hadn't. At one point you said your favorites were the Miyabi and Kisiki Goldspot. They are romantic. Would you argue that?
I can't say I'm familiar with all your carts, but I noticed you have a duplication. The Pickering 7500 is the same as the 980LZ - identical. They even take the same stylus. Was this to complete your collection? You collect carts like they're model trains or baseball cards. Those two have different writing on them so it's a keeper?
I listen to them one at a time and I usually have a few set up. I consider my Monster 1000 an accurate cart, as opposed to romantic. Response goes past 100K and it's flat as a pancake. Some Dynavectors have similar flat response. If you like a rising high end that's not a problem with me.
The point of MM loading is getting it to sound the way you like. The fact of the matter is, a MM is much more easily manipulated. With a MC loading doesn't do much more than open the stage and dynamics vs focus and detail. Loading has virtually no affect on amplitude response. If more people knew about the potential of MM carts we'd have better MM phono stages with loading options.
Regards, |
There's another aspect that makes former rankings absurd. Loading all HO carts at 100K is not only ridiculous, it's stupid. I brought this up before, but some people don't understand the basics. The only reason preamps give you no selection for HO carts is they think MCs are the only ones that matter. Back in the day there were preamps with selectable loads for HO carts, even continuously variable up to 100K. Varying preamp capacitance is mandatory for properly loading a MM. Today, you're lucky if they even tell you what the shunt capacitance is.
HO carts have inductance as a property of the output. That inductance is often used by the cart designer to compliment the amplitude response. With such a cart, if you stray from the recommended capacitance you're changing the intended response.
The inductance of the cart combines with the capacitance. They talk about electrical resonance (Hagerman), but it's nearly meaningless. What you need to know is that combination of inductance and capacitance lowers the mechanical high frequency resonance of the cart. It does NOT act as a low pass filter at electrical resonance and it does NOT cause a phase shift at ER frequency.
Sometimes I wonder how this thread got as far as it did. I know some have read the TNT article Load the Magnets by Werner Ogiers (EE). Nobody understands it?
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/load_the_magnets_e.html
Regards, |
Dear Fleib, Can you share with us which 'not romantic' MC carts you own as well which MM carts you bought, tested and recommended in this MM thread? Raul invested a huge amount of money is his search for, uh, the 'cart of the month'. Since he left this thread I have hardly seen any new MM cart in this thread. So if anyone care's about new MM carts he should care about Raul's absence I would think. To give some idea about my 'romantic carts' such that we can compare those with your 'not romantic' kinds here is a list of my MC and MM carts.
MC carts: Magic Diamond, Miyabi Standard , Benz LP S (aka mr), Kiseki Goldspot, Kiseki Milltek, Shiraz (Roksan), Van den Hul EMT, EMT LZi, Blue Oasis, Ortofon MC 2000,Shinon Red boron, Sony XL 88 D, Sony XL 44 L, MIT I (aka Coral 81/82), Yamaha MC-1 S, Hiyphonic AC-A3, Klipsch MCZ-2 and FR-7 .
MM carts: ADC TRX II (beryllium), AT 150 ANV,AT 155 CL, AT 20 Sla, AT 14 SA, Pickering XLZ 7500, Stanton TH 981 S, Stanton 980 LZS, Signet TK 10 ML, Signet TK 9CL, Signet TK 7 CL, Signet TK 7SU, Glanz 71 L, Glanz MFG 61 and Glanz MF 31 L.
If you are right all those carts should be qualify as 'romantic'. |
From the contributions of my dear friends Fleib and Lew one
can easilly deduce: if one can't afford a really good MC
phono amp one should stick to the MM kind. The advantage is
obvious: double discount. The MM amps are much cheaper and
the same apply for the MM carts. As much as I admire Lew
for his numerous capabilties his persistence is remarcable.
Messing with tubes, capacitors, resistors, etc. for 35 years
and still trying to improve his phono-stage. No wonder he
is not yet able to decide one way or the other. |
I'm with Fleib on this one......😷
For 5 years, because of Raul's influence.....I ran all my MM cartridges at 60K Ohms Resistance as this was the highest the Halcro DM10 could go.
Only in the last year have I moved away from this 'mantra'.....and been amazed at the differences...😳😍
Not only is 60K Ohms too high (bright😖) for most of my MMs (let alone 100K)😱.....I find that some of them sound better when loaded as low as 10K Ohms...😎⁉️....and 20K, 30K, and 40K are all very much the norm in achieving a smooth, lush and convincing presentation....👍👏
Combining this versatility in Resistance loading with the variable Capacitance the Halcro DM10 allows....gives me the opportunity to 'contour' many of my MMs to sound very much the same as each other 'tonally'...😳
Of course things like Soundstage, Attack, Depth and Emotion are all unaffected by Loading and are fundamental to each cartridge's individual character.
Unlike Resistance....which generally tilts the upper frequencies as it itself rises.....with Capacitance I find no such universal relationship 👀⁉️
Sometimes a figure of 70pF Capacitance will give the correct delicacy and translucency to the 'highs'.....whilst sometimes a figure of 430pF will be correct for another cartridge.....depending always on the Resistance being used...😱⁉️
And because of the varied competencies of the recording, mastering and mixing engineers involved in the myriads of records out there.....I find myself often changing the loadings on specific recordings.....and sometimes even for different tracks on the SAME recording....😡😑😰⁉️
All this does not make my life easier or more fun 😢.....but I am now 'trapped' in this endless contouring for perfection.....but never really sure that I have achieved it....❓😳
I need help...😗 |
Lew,
I doubt Ralph would be upset referring to Dave's phono stage as being built into a preamp. The MP1 appears to be a full function preamp and we're talking about it.
I just read the manual and it seems to be made for MCs. The gain isn't stated. It's about 55dB? I question the choice of a 12AT7 tube, but maybe any tube on the input would have far too much capacitance for a MM anyway, so it's best suited for a LOMC? Any benefit running it balanced in from your table? What kind of MM stage did you build?
Using a SUT is like using a DL103. If you get it right you're trading detail/resolution for dynamics and musicality. Also, the output of a SUT has a lot of capacitance and you're still going into a MM input. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I like and use both MMs and MCs, but the MCs I like tend to be the accurate variety with extended response. Nandric can keep his Kisiki and other romantic MCs. I'm glad he enjoys them, they're not for me. I want to hear what's on the record, not what some cart designer thinks it should be.
I realize Raul started this thread, but I never gave his rankings much credence. It would be nice to talk about this stuff without someone referring to the Mexican. He's not responding any more. Who cares?
Regards, |
Fleib, I and Dave Garretson both own Atma-sphere MP1 preamplifiers. He and I have modified the phono gain stage, which uses a dual-differential cascode topology, such that the "bottom" element in the cascode is a dual-section bipolar transistor, an MAT02. I got this idea from Allen Wright and passed it on to Dave. I also changed the top tube in this stage; Atma-sphere uses 12AT7, and I use an ECC99 because it is higher in transconductance than a 12AT7. The result of this mod is dead silent gain and oodles of gain for even the lowest gain imaginable MC cartridge. In fact, my only problem with this set-up is too much gain for any MM. I've had to build a separate MM dedicated phono stage. Dave's purchased an XP25, I guess, but I don't know whether it totally replaces his MP1. Ralph Karsten would probably be very upset with you for referring to the MP1 as a "preamplifier with an added phono section" (or whatever similar description you wrote above). The MP1 is his pride and joy for its performance on phono, and rightfully so, IMO.
If Raul can "confess" that MCs are superior to MMs, may I also confess that I don't agree with him? I still take cartridges as they come, MC or MM. And does my confession have as much of a shattering effect as his?
I always wondered whether Raul's original tendency to favor MMs over MCs was at least in part due to some failing of the high-gain input of his own Phonolinepreamp. Perhaps he late in the thread made some changes that brought its performance up to that of the MM section. Some supporting evidence for that is his other "revelation", that SUTs, against which he railed for years, were really good in fact, and we should all love them. I guessed that perhaps running a SUT though his MM phono stage sounded better than his flawed MC high gain stage. And suddenly, MCs could sound good. |
Leave it to a lawyer to put spin on the situation that seems favorable to his opinion. The Mexican didn't confess anything. He arrived at that conclusion after revising the high gain stage of his phonolinepreamp. He would probably be of that opinion anyway if his MC stage were better, but that's not how it happened.
Loading all his MMs at 100K, it seems obvious he liked the rising high end of most MCs. Whether you like the accuracy of master tape performance or the added "clues" of a MC is a matter of opinion. To each his own.
You could look at this another way. His preference coincides with prospective sales. I'd prefer to think the former reason is correct.
Regards, |
