1. Home
  2. analog
  3. 1065283688

OK, I said it...

Just got the new turntable running this morning. Installed the Kontrapunkt B on the Rega P9; a most nerve wracking job. Well I can't find a crow and I am not yet ready to eat some, but here are my very preliminary findings based on listening to one side of two albums (one brand new, Art Blakey's "Indestructible"), one that's been on hand for a while, (Dire Straits "Communiqué"):

my greatest peeve, surface noise: way less, but still a bother on softer cuts or portions of pieces where the volume is low;
soundstage: quite incredible;
layering of instruments: quite incredible;
natural tone of the instruments: stunning;
treble: well the cymbals are back the way I like them; sharp attack and decay when hit near the centre, sharp attack and shimmering decay when hit nearer the edge;
bass: not the subwoofer-type of bass, but the overtones are more present, that is an acoustic bass has that plummy quality.

Well I am not a "convert", in the sense at looking at the experience as crossing a threshold from where you never go back. I still think that digital is better at doing silence, which is so necessary in music, and, in letting the sound of soft music come out without the anxiety of tick and pops.

So far, I have not listened to enough music to have a real hard opinion about the merits of better analog equipment. Suffice it to say that in answer to the post wondering if any progress has been made in the last twenty years, I would have to say quite a lot. This is based on a very quick, very subjective appreciation at the moment. What is the table's, what is the arm's, what is the cartridge's contribution in all this: very hard to say, and will never be known since I have no intention of playing mix and match.

Am still using the Sumiko Phono Box for the time being. The next move is a new phono section. Is there another level yet to be achieved with that upgrade? I while back I would have been extremely sceptical, now I hope there is. What bugs me, is to have to make another leap of faith.

Well, I will keep you posted. Good day.
pbb
viridian's avatar
viridian
4,184 posts
 
The wall shelf is a great answer, both to the question of eliminating floor borne acoustic feedback and to leveling the turntable, as the upturned spikes that support the shelf can be screwed up or down. The only tables left without adjustable feet seem to be from Britain, just more idiosyncracy from across the pond. I would also point out that many modern tables also include clamps, which can ameliorate the severity of the warps in many records.

One more test, if you can bear with me any longer. Observe the cantilever as it tracks the warps. The entire arm should go up and down with the warps, if instead, the cantilever is deflecting, then the low freqency of the mechanical system may be off. This would be caused by a mismatch in the moving mass of the arm and the compliance of the cartridge. The result would be increased output below the resonant point of the moving system.
clueless
763 posts
 
said above by Viridian >>"if you can bear with me any longer"

Not talking to me obviously but, on the contrary, your analysis was spot on. Nice to read. Certain Pbb feels the same way.

Cheers
I remain
viridian's avatar
viridian
4,184 posts
 
Thanks so much for your generous comments Clueless. It is interesting that PBB had no problems when using the Shure V15 type V. And I am glad that he asked why. This cartridge has a viscous damping mechanism right at the stylus, the point of greatest moving mass. Many think it is just a brush, and it is. But it's greatest contribution is to viscously damp the primary resonance of the moving system. This is one reason why, though the cartridge is sensitive to VTA, it is very insensitive to arm mass and rigidity. Many arms have damping at the pivot point but few at the stylus. The Townsend has this type of damping and Discwasher used to make a little aftermarket gadget as well. But the Shure will not cause any LF garbage with even the worst warps in almost any setup. It is really the best cartridge available in this performance parameter. So it is really no wonder that it did not cause the effect that is causing PBB tsuris.
sean
6,229 posts
 
Viridian: The Stanton 881S also uses a "brush" or "dynamic stabilizer". Not only is it more linear than the Shure in terms of frequency response when properly loaded, it will out-track it with less distortion. Shure's typically have a problem with high amplitude recordings i.e. the louder the recordings, the more distortion they produce. If one listens to chamber music, the Shure will work quite well for them. If one listens to music with big amplitude changes, they will notice the sound getting grungier as the passages become more intense in amplitude. This is a non-linear distortion since it does not appear until the cantilever is required to make larger vertical excursions.

For sake of clarity, I have both a Stanton 881S, 881S MK II and a Shure V15VxMR. I recently sold two V15 Type IV's with spare styli. After doing direct comparisons, both my Brother and my Father chose Stanton's over the VxMR, so that's what i set them up with in their TT's. As such, i'm well familiar with the products that i'm commenting on.

As mentioned, the Shure's are not "bad" cartridges and are quite universal in tonearm matching, but they can be bettered if one is willing to puth forth the effort in dialing in the arm / cartridge / phono stage loading. This is exactly why Kevin at KAB Electroacoustics is working with Stanton rather than Shure in developing the "ultimate" cartridge for his highly modified 1200's. Not only are the Stanton's less money, they are better, more consistent performers. Sean
>
elmuncy
64 posts
 
Isn't analog fun? No matter what you do, someone will say its wrong. It's part of the hobby to find out what works with what in YOUR system.
More to discover