Dear Acman, Experimenting different spacers on Tomahawk wand is the most important study on the subject, so also you are the chosen one for this quest. The aluminium wand itself is very rigid & light, so the answer may very well lay in the headshell. Nothing else interests us Terminator fans (and many other Agoners I believe) more at the moment. I´m also delighted that you both Messengers have the PRECEPT PC220 engine, a perfect tool for this highly important research. Hardly can wait for your reports. Btw, I and probably many others have found a fool proof method to determine a cart´s optimum maximum VTF. Play a very eccentric (max 2 mm off-axis is reasonable, unfortunately many records are eccentric) record with certain air flow and VTF. Manual says: "If the stylus is tracking reliably, you should see the saddle swaying to & fro smoothly with eccentric records. There should be no strain on the stylus, which should remain stationary relative to the cartridge body." So you have to increase air flow and/or VTF to achieve satisfactorily tracking. In the case of my ACUTEX LPM315 STRIII, the air flow must set at very high to maintain VTF at 2.0 grams. If a cart tracks a very off-axis record, it will track anything in normal playing situation (of course if it is a good tracker initially). Furthermore, my ACUTEX needs at least 1.8 grams VTF on certain on-axis but very difficult "ubertransient" and very dynamic recordings like Al di Meola´s "Elegant Gypsy" (Columbia 1977). Otherwise gets very distorted and impossible to listen. |
Yup it's a 67. It's easier to tell if you can see the tail lights. I prefer the tail lights on the 67. The other way to tell between the 66 and 67 is on the 66 the GTO badge is in the middle of the front fender. On the 67 it's on the bottom of the front fender. The 65 has a different body style and are pretty cool too.
Lewm, Your system does have some similarities to mine. I'm sure it sounds great. The ANV is very clear and realistic sounding to me. It's not romantic. It just tells it like it is. In my system loaded at 47k it's still very good but a little damped sounding on top. At 68k it's nice and open just how I like it. If you don't mind buying grey market they can be had for around $675.00 on Ebay from Japanese sellers. |
That's a 67. I had a 65 with tripower power back in the day. Wish still had that fine machine. |
Dear Sarcher, Have you tried listening to the SP10 Mk2A in the GTO? What year is that, 64, 65, or 66? I don't think it's a 64.
Yes, I like your system, too, and the fact that the ANV works well with it would suggest it will work well in mine. |
Thanks Raul. There are not allot of comments about the ANV on the web. I've had mine for about 9 months now and I'm quite happy with it. The stylus is not glued on like most carts. I think it's pressure fit. They must have used a laser to cut the hole in the end on the sapphire cantilever. I've been trying to find just the replacement stylus for the ANV but they must have sold out of them already. |
Dear Sarcher30: Thank's for your post. I almost can't read nothing about the AT150ANV quality performance level so your experiences are appreciated. Now I'm confident that I took a good " move ". No one bought two samples of the same model cartridge especially in a current model and at its asking price.
I think I own or owned every single top of the line AT/Signet designed and till today never disapoint me and I'm sure that this one will follow on that excellent " road ".
Btw, really nice audio system you own, everything looks just great.: congratulations!.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
I own 2 AT150ANV's and both have the stylus mounted so you need to have the back of the arm quite high to get the SRA to 92 degrees. I am using a brass shim in front of the cartridge so I don't have to raise the back so high. Once the SRA is correct this cartridge is great. Very clear sounding. It kicks the MLX's butt. On my rig it sounds perfect loaded at 68k with a naked Vishay resistor. I liked the sound so much I just picked up a backup. I also just sent in my old AT150MLX to Soundsmith for a ruby cantilever and OCL stylus. When I get it back I will see how the Soundsmith ruby cantilever compares to the ANV's sapphire cantilever. I'm hoping that they are similar as I really like the ANV. |
Acman, The main reason why I bought the Mat2 was its weight; it is more nearly the same weight as the original rubber mat used on the SP10 Mk3, and I wanted to be sure not to compromise the servo feedback system on the Mk3. However, now that I have it, I do think it may be more neutral than is the Mat1, which I had been using regularly on the Lenco. The Mat1 is a huge upgrade from the stock Lenco mat. But then, I never have tried the Mat2 on the Lenco. Horses for courses, I think.
I confess that I too succumbed and bought a Precept 220XE and a 550ML stylus. Now I will have to have a listen for sure. |
Dear Lewm: Yes, I posted that ruby/sapphire are the same and in this thread Jlin did it:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openusid&zzJlin&4&5#Jlin
however somewhere in the net I read it that both materials are not exactly the same but similar and has some different characteristics. I don't know if that is true or not and obviously I don't know if those " different characteristics " affect the cartridge performance level.
Those two models that AT choosed to came with ruby cantilevers were really expensive: the MM TK100 was near 1.5K in those older times and the LOMC 37E near 2K.
I like the look of the Ruby against the Sapphire " brother ". Anyway, for me this AT150ANV is a must to hear and that's why I decided to bought it. We will see how performs against the Precept 440/550ML.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Jlin: Maybe you are right about, I don't argue but still there is something " wrong " down there because ( for example. ) my Colibri wood has 0.6mv output at 5.0cm/sg but its SPL is very similar to my other Colibri that has 0.28mv at 3.54cm/sg and in the other side my Clearaudio Discovery has an output of 0.65mv and put higher SPL than the " similar " 0.6mv in my Colibri: the difference goes around 4db-5dbs.
So maybe the " problem " comes from the manufacturer way to measure it maybe they have a different " reference/standard ", I don't know for sure. What I know is that exist a clear difference that any " deaf man " can hear it.
J.Carr: where are you? we need you. I'm sure he can put some precise light in the subject see it from a cartridge manufacturer point of view.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Acman3,
Incidentally, I have had the joy of listening to the same records on both silencer and older (solid block) platters and the difference is clear, to my ears. You could not listen to a record on the old platter without some sort of mat.
As always... |
Acman3,
I totally agree.
As always... |
The Precept 220 body with NOS 550ML stylus now has five hrs on Trans-Fi linear tonearm and modified ARC PH-2 phono stage loaded at 100K. My wife, a jaded observer of windmill fighting, says it sounds "big and buttery" in a good way. Beck's Sea Change Mofi sounds voluptuous and detailed like the SACD and far more enveloping and seductive than the same LP I heard on a $400K system at CES. Dylan's Time Out of Mind-- certainly not an audiophile recording-- is rich and emotional and enigmatic, with more saturated colors than I've heard before down in those grooves. The question is whether this is real or exaggeration. So far so good. |
Lewm, I get great sound from the Mat II, and only can tell the very slight masking of highs, when I go back to the bare platter. As you know, this is so system dependent. Next week I might decide it is to bright and go to the Mat II full-time again.
I am looking forward to trying the resomat and actually like Storyboy's dots on a record idea. Sort of the same idea implemented differently.
Can you describe the difference between the Mat I and the II? I was thinking the Mat I might work better on my current setup. Just a little less damping. |
Hi Acman, I may have said I can hear the effect of the Boston mat, but I do prefer it at the moment to all the other mats I have around here, on the Lenco and the SP10 Mk3. The "effect" is a good one. I do use the stainless steel platter mat that is OEM with the L07D, and of course I like that too, but we have to consider that that one was chosen and made to integrate with the overall design of the L07D platter. For one thing, the weight of the platter would be unacceptably diminished if one were to sub it with a Boston mat1 or mat2. Finally, I just put the DP80 back into service, just to compare it to the Lenco. I have yet to find the "optimal" mat for it. The SAEC SS300 might be best or a Boston Mat2. But I want to keep the Mat2 on the SP10 Mk3, and the Mat1 seems too light for the DP80. Right now I am running it with both the SS300 and then the Mat1 on top of that. Not so good. |
Dgob, I guess we would need a platter without silencer's in our system to actually know the effect of the silencers. I do remember a Acoustic Sig. video where Gunther had someone rap the aluminum platter to show it ring, and then rap a Storm, I think, and it was quiet. I believe the idea has merit, but how much is the overall table and chosen arm and how much is the platter silencers? I don't know.
The record on the platter seems faster to me. May be the rise in pitch you mention. I like the Boston mat too, but as Lewm said, you can hear it's effect. The bare platter, seems to have less signature, to me. |
Jlin, Assuming that the "RMS" specification is made, you are correct, but over my lifetime of looking at cartridge specs, I am not sure I can say I have regularly seen that. Nevertheless, good point.
Raul, That AT looks like an exciting combination of "vintage" ideas translated using the most modern materials. I will be interested to read your opinion of it. However, as to ruby vs sapphire, I have been given to believe by others here and elsewhere that that is a distinction without a difference. In fact, you may be one of those who have mentioned it. |
Looks as a winner, we will see:
http://www.lpgear.com/product/ATC0150ANV.html
R. |
Dear friends: I bought an Audio Technica AT150ANV. I think that I only read one post on an owner of that Anniversary cartridge version.
I don't know how good really is but in the past AT never dissapoint me, the latest Precept experience confirm about.
I don't receive yet but the cartridge has at least to good characteristics: sapphire cantilever and titatinum body. I understand that this is the first time AT used sapphire as cantilever build material in any of its cartridges. In the past they used ruby and diamond in the AT37, AT1000 and TK100.
In the other side the titanium body build material was used only in the ART1, at least is what I remember. I own all those cartridges that are very good performers.
If some of you already had the AT150ANV experience I invite you to share those experiences with us, certainly I will do it as soon I listen it.
Regards and enjoy the music, }R. |
Dear Fleib: Yes, appears that 5.0cm/sg is the today norm to measure cartridge output level.
I just bought a VdH Colibri wood and I was thinking a lot before pull the triger because the cartridge had a 0.5mv+ ( I prefer lower output in the Colibries. ) but the offer was very good and I bought it.
Arrived and I listening and found out that the output was lower than the specs and when I read it the in-box specs its output level is referenced to 5.0cm/sg when my other Colibri ( that I own from several years. ) is referenced to 3.54cm/sg.. So the manufacturers just changed.
Btw, I always liked the Colibri and recomend it and this Wood version is no exception: a great performer, better yet than my other Colibri. and that several other top cartridges.
Regrads and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Acman3,
I agree on the Silencer platter. It does make a big difference to the resonances and lack of feedback from the platter (BS factor not withstanding). However, when I tried it naked with various clamps, it slightly raised the pitch while (possibly, 'consequently') increasing clarity/separation. It is the way that the manufacturers recommend its use though, so...
As always... |
Just a quick comment on cartridge output specifications. They are commonly listed for either 5 cm/sec peak or 3.54 cm/sec RMS at 1 kHz, but the number should be the same, because a sine wave with an RMS value of 3.54 cm/sec has a peak value of 5 cm/ sec. In other words, even though 3.54 and 5 are two different numbers, they are just two ways to describe exactly the same thing. |
Dear Griffithds: Yes, I received. Thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Raul, The silencers are flat with the platter, so the vinyl is not in contact with any rubber. The theory, at least as I understand, is more in absorption and dissimilar metals not allowing resonance. It kind of sets off my BS meter, but the table has performed great, so maybe it works???
I ordered the Reso-mat, as it is quite reasonably priced. I like the idea of pigskin. I think there is an old football in my son's old room. :) |
Dear Acman3: MY AS TTs have not the " silencers " on the latest AS model.
I can't be sure but seems to me that the ruber O-rings in those silencers are the ones that are in touch with the LP: it is in this way?, maybe that's why you like or use it with out mat.
I listened LPs with out mat in the AS and did not like me.
regards and enjoy the music, R. |
That's the thing with mats. There are schools of thought, just as for drive systems, etc. Some like to elevate the LP away from the platter, a la the old Transcriptors tt. Some like to use a mat that approximates the characteristics of a vinyl LP. Some like big heavy metal mats. And some like something that is none of those 3. But elevating the LP using multiple small contact points that hold the LP away from the platter must surely give a profoundly different sound compared to any of the other options. I used to own a Transcriptors, but I cannot recall its sonic character. |
Raul, Lew, I think 5 cm/sec is the standard now. If you go to Ortofon, AT, Grado, site, they're all rated at 5 cm/sec velocity. When I saw the sheet for the PC440, I didn't notice the velocity. I haven't looked at my 550 stylus yet. I don't have the Precept body, so I'm in no rush. It might be interesting to compare it to the 20SS stylus. I usually prefer the ML tip over a shibata. Shibata has a different facet on the front and back sides. That's supposed to give it a curved (rather than straight) contact area as the record spins. I'm not positive, but that could be the reason I hear the shibata sweeten the top end - not always a bad thing though.
I like Pierre Lurne' approach to platter w/no mat. He made a lead sandwich with methacrylate as the bread. The mass and resonant frequency of the lead prevented vibrations from being reflected back to the stylus. A few years ago somebody on VE was using tiny spikes, or rounded spikes points up, as a mat. A few people swore by it. Regards,
|
Like the girl next door which we overlooked for 10 years and then were to late. Heureka: keep the previous record on the platter and put onother one above. The best mat ever invented by a (tipsy)coincidence. |
Raul, the Precept 220 showed up today. The cartridge has a lot of promise, even with the 220xe stylus. Took a little while for the bass to show up. Only about 3 hours on it. Can get a little bright so far.
Regarding TT mats. I use the Acoustic Sig. platter bare or the Boston II if I can't get the cartridge to settle down. The AS has silencers, but don't know if that's a sales thing or something real. I tried a couple of others, but so far come back to these two. Always looking for a better mouse trap though. Would be interested in a weight. |
Raul, Spec. sheet sent. Let me know if it arrived. It seems to be a picture therefore I can't copy and paste to this site. Not really sure but I tried many times using different methods. If you did receive it Raul, and there are others that want it (Nandric), I would be more that happy to send it to them if they provide their e/mail. If you can figure out a way to post it here, that would be even better. Regards, Don |
|
Harold, I got the idea from Dgarretson. He is light years ahead of me in knowledge regarding, well anything related to turntables and arms, and probably many other things not discussed.
I will try some different materials and see what happens. |
Timeltel those youngens I'm sure he's going to take care of the gear. I've recently got my hands on a widow. Mounted a Stanton 881 and a acutex 315 long noise. Had a Ken Willis protractor delivered with original BW specs. In the end the micro 505 is back in I never was satisfied with what I was hearing.
Put the AKG p100le on the micro using Willis original setting and yes this cartridge is special in every way. Except my Fisher 400c has to be cranked up a little to much due to 2.7mv getting some low level hum. And that is what I was digging into yesterday. The hum is present at 90db in a slight way Mike
|
Since the topic has been raised - 25 years ago I decided to experiment in the opposite direction of the Mat and Platter wars and try a next to nothing mat. I built a plate made of a flat record and 15 tiny foam 'dots'. After proper setup (of course) it was immediately apparent that what I had been listening to previously was essentially the 'sound' of the platter (or mat) buried beneath the reproduction. I still have and use that mat to this very day.
I do not use a weight, it's just the sound of vinyl coming through, and yes - it does have a 'sound'. Sorry, can't post a pic, but just pick your flattest giveaway record and make 3 rings of 5 tiny 1mm sq. foam (or whatever) supports.
It's well worth the effort, just remember who suggested it. |
Dear Raul, It does seem that in "the modern era", cartridge output is more often given at the stylus velocity of 5cm/sec, as opposed to 3.54cm/sec. Worse yet, many manufacturers do not tell the reference velocity at all. I think they want you to assume that they measured at 3.54, when actually it is now "kosher" to measure at 5.0. Makes the cartridge appear to have a higher output.
I have seen arguments about whether the Koetsu makes 4 or 6mV output. I think the argument is really about 3.54cm/sec vs 5cm/sec. |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: I tested years ago the same approach as the Reso-mat and it works, no doubt about.
What I used was tiptoes like directly to the TT platter and a clamp. Maybe I have to test it again against my mat, right now I think I have a better tiptoe build material than in the past. Thank's to bring here that Reso-mat.
Even that I almost agree with the Reso-mat about clamps I think that a light clamp improves the souns.
I use a wood light weight clamp that an Agon friend gives me ( he builded, is a copy of the Shu Monk one but light weight. ) and I put/glued at the side where the clamp is in contact with the LP 2mm of our tonearm build material.
In the past I used every clamp that was out there till by my self falled in count that the traditional clamps made it more harm than help. I started to listen my LPs with out clamp till my friend send it his design and when I tested ( with out my material in there. ) I like what I heard and latter on I add the material to the base in the clamp and is how I'm using it till today and there is nothing that tell me to reject this clamp yet.
Anyway, IMHO we have to work in our each one system with mats and clamps to " discover " which approach and item works for the better: lowering distortions and killing colorations.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Regards Professors, In the case of the Meitner and others alike the Transcriptors way back in the 1960´s "The record naturally dissipates vibrations, particularly at the levels and frequencies that they occur, to air. Thus air becomes the absorbent "platter", the only substance that does not give energy back to the record." This is exactly happening with the Reso-Mat, the modern implementation of the then (and still futuristic) Transcriptors platter. I put the Reso on my platter and the improvement in audio quality & purity is breathtaking. I began to experimenting on hard mats in the early 1990´s. Originally I had a very dence and smooth sorbothane rubber mat, and it gave very nice audio with my very compliant MM carts. So I experimented hard metalacrylic mats with my very compliant MM carts. I also had a GOLDMUND STUDIO DD TT with metalacrylate hard mat but I find its sound quality unconvincing with my MMs. Oh, wish I had had a proper MC like Shinon Red (boron/MicroLine) then ! But in my younger days couldn´t afford one... they were insanely expensive at the time, and second hand/used were extremely rare. Heavy DD TT and Shinon cart, just couldn´t have them both. I never abandoned sorbothane and I´m still using it under the Reso-Mat. However, hard mats (compared to soft mats) may very well fit better certain, less-compliant (MC) carts. Anyway, it was "hip" in the late 1980´s to use low-compliant "high-end" MC´s and obviously hard mats were designed to fit them. Professor Timeltel, Glad you´re experimenting a nude TT. Without knowing your equipment I knew you MUST have something extraordinary there ! |
My mistake:
+++++ " that we can hear in normal .. " ++++, wrong: we have to read it this way:
THAT WE CAN'T HEAR IN NORMAl......
R. |
Dear Timeltel: Never mind. What is really interesting in what you linked ( thank's. ) is that in some ways confirm what I posted here and in other threads about the critical importance of TT mats:
+++++ " The point at which the record contacts the mat or platter is an energy interface that vibrations, traveling at high velocities, must traverse. These vibrations will not be completely absorbed by the interfacing surface, and a significant portion of the energy will be "mirrored" back into the record. Because most of the energy is generated by the cartridge stylus, this is the area to receive most of the reflected energy. The result is a form of distortion read by the stylus and incorporated into the music signal. " +++++
that feedback is " terrible " because makes a signal degradation, so as better the mat to dissipate that stylus/LP energy and impede the feedback as lower will be that degradation.
I used several TT mats over the years and in all cases with different results. Was like two years ago during the work in our tonearm design that I ask my self and share this question with Guillermo ( friend and tonearm co-designer. ):
hey!, why not test what could happen if we build a TT mat with our propietary same build material that we are using in our tonearm? , at the end is working ( the material. ) great with the tonearm so why not? and that's what we made it and what we achieved was and is overwhelming and unspected.
We discovered " something " there. After that I again asked my self: why not use it in all the tonearms other than our desing through the headshell? and that's what we did and build several headshells that's where I mount and make the cartridge tests, these headshells are plug-in tyupe this is that do not have the universal headshell connector bayonet but just plug-in that gives/permit me easy changes in azymuth and overhang.
This kind of mat and headshell I'm using permit me too to be aware of distortions tiny distortions that we can hear in normal set ups, in the past I made the tests between universal headshells against my headshell for I can make that kind of statement.
Timeltel, time for the Precept PC 220/440 or 550ML.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
Dear Griffithds: 5.6cm/sg, that's what I was thinking but can't be sure.
Normaly, the cartridge output spec comes/is measured at 3.54 cm/sg that's what we are accustom to be aware. When some one tell us that a cartridge has an output of 3.7mv almost all of us before listen it more or less have a clear idea where the volume selector will be in our system.
That 4.2mv for the 220/440 seems to me to high for what I was and am hearing and that's what I posted that the output is lower than that spec, your post confirm that that 4.2mv PC440/220 output was not measured at the normal 3.54cm/sg but at 5.6cm/sg.
Thank you for put some light in the subject. Yes, I appreciate if you email me that cartridge sheet: rauliruegas@hotmail.com
Regards and enjoy the music, R |
Dear Harold-not-the-barrel: +++++ " mat itself + record´s (platter´s) speed and especially its stability are the most crucial factors in LP play. " ++++
of course that speed accuracy and stability are the primary targets and that's why exist a TT.
We audiophiles know that the TT mat is important but IMHO almost no one gives the importance that I think it has.
In all the years that I have reading and posting in Agon only Atmasphere and now you are the only Agoners that realy knows what are talking about on that subject becuase took " actions " specific to be aware of its critical role in the quality performance trhough the analog alternative.
Almost all of us already tested and changed mats in our TTs but IMHO many of us never go deeper in the mat research with the same " attitude/emotion " that we did it when discovered , for example, the MM/MI alternative.
My experiences about tell me that's worth to make that mat deep research because the rewards are and makes a paramount difference. Of course that maybe some of you already are " there " even that never posted about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R. |
|
Regards, Stltrains: Hi, Mike. There's a link in that LONG thread to one discussing wave propagation within a cantilever, quite a read.
33 yr. old son has absconded with my SP-25/Black Widow TA. He has the marvelous ability to transform "loan" to "give". The BW is like an old friend whose voice is immediately identifiable. A Shure V15-111/HE stylus was, I thought, a good match.
Peace, |
Regards, Raul: Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. Fleib's comment "speed of sound in different materials, I think that would pertain more to plinths, than cantilevers" was addressed, not to me but to another. Wouldn't tonearms, and the manner in which they're integrated or isolated to the plinth/spindle/platter be a related consideration? I didn't read your post with enough care, mea culpa. Remember the controversy when the Meitner TT was introduced? http://www.museatex.com/at2.htm"Because most of the energy is generated by the cartridge stylus, this is the area to receive most of the reflected energy. The result is a form of distortion read by the stylus and incorporated into the music signal--- the typical record (is) an increasingly ideal half-wave coupler of acoustic energy from the lower mid-range up, and improving as the frequency rises. The record naturally dissipates vibrations, particularly at the levels and frequencies that they occur, to air. Thus air becomes the absorbent "platter", the only substance that does not give energy back to the record." Peace, |
Dear comrade Don, There are other comrads than Raul and they all like to know if 220 and 440 have the same generator and body? I already own the right stylus (AT 12S)
Regards, |
Hello Acman, Experimenting different spacers between the Tomahawk wand and cartridge will the most fascinatining, yet inevitable course in Evolution. Aluminium may very well be the best solution for the already fantastic Tomahawk but other materials should be studied carefully. You are the chosen one for this quest and will be the pioneer. May God bless you. |
Regards Raul, Exactly, ´...the very first "link" that is in touch with the LP: TT mat, is IMHO even more critical that the plinth itself ´. Furthermore, mat itself + record´s (platter´s) speed and especially its stability are the most crucial factors in LP play. In my system I have recently improved both and results are breathtaking. Even mediocre (technically speaking) carts sound relatively good, some even excellent on such decks. Different plinths have different colourations/resonances on sound quality but are only secondary, minor factors. |
Dear Acman, the parallel universe is a kind of 'show off' about my philosophical 'inclination'. But when I was confronted with 'all possible worlds' I give my philosophical study up. |
Thanks Raul, I've been looking for a recommendation for 2juki. I'll buy from him with confidence. Don |
Professor i hadn't caught up on pass posts here before i saw the link to the same thread in between super bowl commercials. For sure a long thread that i will spend the time on. As you say peace. |
Raul,
I have a spec. sheet that compares the Precept 110 to the 220 and 440. The 110 has an output of 4.6, both the 220 and the 440 are stated at 4.2. This is at 5 cm/sec. I've tried to copy and paste this hear but it wont copy and paste. I could forward the email to you if I had your email address. Regards, Don |
Here's a link for a fine thread at vinylengine on loading and capacitance http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=6674&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 |