Interesting to note that Dave Garretson once remarked here that he found the LZS to be "dark" sounding. (I think that was the descriptor he used, but in any case that was the sentiment.) And I believe that Raul agreed with him. Now here we have Don saying that it can sound "bright" to him, and also Fleib saying that it is the most "neutral" cartridge he owns. I tend to agree with Fleib, but obviously the disparate comments show how system-dependent some of these opinions can be. Note that Dave and I use the exact same phonolinepreamp (in Raul's parlance), Atma-sphere MP1 that has been modified to use a single transistor at the phono input (otherwise it's all tubes).
I once remarked that special care may be appropriate if matching the LZS with a SUT, since it does have considerably more inductance than a typical MC cartridge, altho way less than a typical MM. I am not sure I was correct in that idea, but it makes sense at least to me. |
Dear Raul, I too found my 980LZS to be "dark" sounding with a 100R load. With 1000R it is much better, in my system. I wrote about this once before, and we did discuss it. I think you said that 1000R and higher made no appreciable difference to the sound of the LZS. For me, in my system, it does. I use 1000R. The "standard" 47K load also works fine. Anyone who thinks the cartridge sounds dark at 100R should at least try a higher resistance/less of a load. |
Dear Raul,
You wrote, "As you know load impedance with low output cartridges is critical." I would say instead that load impedance with cartridges that have low internal resistance is critical. Output signal voltage has nothing to do with it. I am sure you know this.
Anyway, you imply that when you went above 100R there was something wrong with the high frequency response. To me, the very definition of "dark" must involve an apparent, if not real, diminution or attenuation of the treble. So, when I went from 100R to 1000R, everything got better, bottom to top, to give me the sensation that the cartridge was "happiest". There was/is no sense at all of a "tipped up" treble, as you imply.
Then you also say that sound pressure is reduced with a 100R load relative to higher R loads. When that happens for real, it is due to an impedance mismatch; it means that the cartridge (in this case) cannot adequately drive that resistance/impedance. The values of output Z and input Z, which ideally should be around 1:10 ratio or higher are typically well below that ratio when such a phenomenon is observed. One definition of proper loading for me with LOMCs might be to say "the lowest load R where there is no loss of gain". Ralph Karsten recommends this criterion. But I do know that many hobbyists use load Rs that do involve giving up some gain. IME, this always sounds too dark to me. In any case, it's been a while since I tried 100R with the 980LZS, but I did not notice loss of gain. Probably this is because, if it happened, I just turned the volume control up a notch. I am pretty used to my system and my room, so I am quite likely to listen at the same sound pressure levels, as long as the gain structure permits. My phono stage has a surfeit of gain. |
I think the issue with the Magic Diamond was not really that it did not sound "good" but that it sold for roughly 10-15 times the cost of the Denon upon which it was based and to some did not sound any different. In other words, it was thought to be a scam, by some. (I have no opinion; I never owned a Magic Diamond or heard one.)
Back in the 70s, Harry Pearson fell in love with the spherical stylus version of the Decca cartridge (model name escapes me), just at a time when the audiophile world had drunk the Kool Aid of elliptical stylus supremacy uber alles. Many of the cognoscenti rushed out to buy the Decca, of course. I heard one; it had a great midrange, no doubt. Later, I bought the elliptical version, the SC4E. It could gouge a neat path through any vinyl, should have been used for a cutter instead of for playback. Very heavy body and zero compliance. |
Nandric, There is complete logic in my post. Please read it again. To say that the Magic Diamond cost 10 times more than the Denon that spawned it is not to say that the buyers were stupid. Where is the word "stupid" in my post? The audio business is full of such deceptions. Are you aware that a Lexicon digital player is an Oppo in disguise, for many times the price of an Oppo? (In fact, many other upscale cdp's are Oppo's in disguise.) The makers of such gear would defend their actions based on the notion that they have added some "secret sauce" that makes their product superior to an Oppo. So too did the maker of the Magic �Diamond vis the Denon. The worst offenders are the purveyors of interconnects, power cords, and speaker cables. How much do you think they really pay for the wire that is the only functional part of their respective products? I am reporting information, not making a judgement. Therefore the fact that I have not heard the Magic Diamond is irrelevant. I am sorry, but your accusation would not stand up in court. You could say that I am guilty of reporting hearsay evidence, but I did identify my statement as hearsay. |
HEREThe origin of the MD cartridge is not a matter of opinion, mine or anyone else's. It is a matter of fact. I have cited a thread where the origin of the Magic Diamond cartridge is discussed and debated. Based on what I read, I am tending to doubt that what I wrote previously is actually true. (The ratio of opinions on the cited 2007 thread is in favor of the independent origin of the MD.) It was a factoid that stuck in my memory from long ago, longer ago than the dates on the cited thread. The MD cartridge may in fact have no child/parent relationship to the Denon DL103. The important thing is whether it sounds good; I have no idea whether it sounds good or not. If Raul and Nikola are enthralled with it, I have to suppose that it does sound good. I used to know Lloyd Walker (Walker Audio), and I now recall that the MD was his baby in the US. I trust Lloyd. I apologize to Mr. Andreoli, the Italian gentleman who is said to produce the MD and many other cartridges and who is a believer in spherical styli. |
Dear Raul, You wrote, "IMHO,103 platform or not is not important." That is what I was trying to say, even when I was also saying that the DL103 is father to the MD. But that seemed to upset you, and certainly it upset Nikola. So it follows that there was some hostility toward the MD, back when the connection became commonly known, because of the vast difference in cost between the two. That's all I ever meant to convey. I think even Lloyd may have backed off the MD because of the resulting bad vibes, but I am not sure. |
This is a response to Dover's post, back up the thread a bit, posted on the 12th. First, I was not "assert"-ing anything; after my first post on the subject, I acknowledged that the relationship between the DL103 and the MD was "rumored" and that the rumor caused some to be put off by the cost of the Magic Diamond. THAT in totality, and that alone, is what I have been repeating. THAT is not internet gossip. It is a fact. Second, I have no proof up or down that there is any relationship between the two cartridges, and I don't give a s**t one way or the other. I've repeated that ad nauseam. Third, Raul has lately stated that the relationship is in fact a real one. I don't even know if he's right, but he speaks with authority. Go argue with Raul. We've all agreed that it makes no difference to the excellence, or lack of same, of the MD.
It seems that those who are enamored of the MD, or who have paid a premium for it, cannot stand the idea that it may have been derived from a much less expensive cartridge, albeit a cartridge that is widely held to be a "giant-killer" among MCs. Can't we drop this boring subject now? Can I somehow shed this stain on my character for internet slander? Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of "Lew takes it in the ear". |
Larry, I know from reading information on the Jensen transformer website that a small RC network can improve the flatness of the frequency response when one is using a SUT, but can you defend your apparent statement that a cartridge with a 5R internal resistance should optimally "see" a 5R impedance looking into the phono stage? This would do two very bad things: (1) you lose a lot of gain from an already very lo-gain signal, and (2) your high frequency response goes into the toilet. How do you get around that?
The 1:10 recommended ratio of output Z to input Z is not just idiosyncratic. |
Dear Larry, I comprehend one or two sentences in your reply to my questions, but much of it I do not get.
Let's take this paragraph:
"electrically speaking there will be no FR change with cartridge loading R....if there is... it may have to do with your phono not have much or no feedback giving it feedback!... and also it maybe doing something to dampen your tonearm ..it is complicated... the only thing that you can do to lower distortion (fact)is lower the phono input R every cartridge will be different because of its inherent DC Resistance and or impedence and when you get to that "magic" R just after that.... lowering it further you will notice loss of output and midrange suckout"
Pull out your statement that there will be no FR change with cartridge loading R. That one is contrary not only to theory but to my direct experience, but it does happen only when you get down to very low load Rs (in other words, high load; the semantics are confusing). And my phono stage(s) use no NFB. Anyway, we are not talking about distortion, which you go on to mention, but FR only. Now, the bottom half of that para does make sense to me, and I agree with it; lowering R to the point just ABOVE which one experiences a loss of output is an approved way to select the load resistance. But for a cartridge with a 5R internal resistance, that value will always be considerably higher than a 5R load on the phono side. Don't you think? I do. That's the only thing you originally wrote with which I took issue.
I have the feeling that I may have misunderstood you in the first place as regards your statement on loading. I have noticed that where SUTs are concerned, you are not the only one who departs from convention where the relationship between output and input impedances are concerned. I have read here and on VA that some use surprisingly low net input Z with a SUT to get "the best" sound out of their Denon DL103s or variants thereof. I have no experience, either of using a SUT or of the Denon (though I have had a broken DL103 in my closet for the past 25 years).
With reference to the latter part of your response, that's like being in favor of motherhood and apple pie. I would be foolish and coarse not to agree with your concluding remarks. And heaven knows I am none of those things. |
You are correct about the proper order of drinks. I drank the wine when we were at dinner in a restaurant near to the jazz, and I drank the vodka later while listening to music. (In the US, they make you drink "something"; or else you pay the cover charge and get nothing.)
As to the rest, is it not true that philosophically there is very little difference between "everything" and "nothing"? So I think we agree.
I actually do not recall Raul making a definitive statement on these two cartridges, except in the recent exchange. I do know one or both were listed in the hallowed post that started this thread and stimulated over 9000 responses. And I know he was vociferous about the P100LE, unobtainable by mere mortals. |
"Fumigate" means to permeate with fumes. Usually this is done by a professional exterminator. Not a "hit man" but a guy who comes into your home to rid it of pests. Not human pests but pests who are members of other species and genii.
When I owned both a DP80 and an SP10 Mk2, I too felt that the DP80 had a slight edge over the latter table. Bill Thalmann told me, after working on both of mine, that the DP80 had a more sophisticated servo system than did the Mk2. But plinths are so much a factor in how direct-drives sound that I would be loathe to conclude that the DP80 is "better" than the Mk2, albeit my two units were each mounted in near identical slate plinths. Suffice to say that I still own the DP80. The SP10 Mk3, on the other hand, is in another higher league compared to either.
Raul, I now do recall the conversation regarding the different versions of AKG. Are you trending toward SUT use? Think of how many poor souls were discouraged from SUT-ophilia by your purist insistence on high gain phono stages, and how much antagonism that generated between you and SUT-istas. And I always agreed with you on that.
Nicola, I took a chance on positing the identity between "everything" and "nothing". Tell me what Frege says, and I will tell you what Sartre says. |
Raul, I think nearly all the DP100s and their ilk (there is at least one other huge studio type Denon, maybe DP308) were sold and used in Japan. Hifido has them once in a while but the cost of shipping across the Pacific or across Asia to Europe would be huge. Also, there would be a risk; if such a turntable needs repairs, one might be out of luck unless one lives in Tokyo. This is why, I think, you don't read much about them. Travis Lundy once owned two of them while he was living in Tokyo; I don't know if he still has them. He now lives in HK. He seemed to like them a lot, but I do not recall his making a comparison between the DP100 and, for example, the Exclusive P3 (of which he also had two) and the SP10 Mk3, which Travis may not have owned at all.
Timel, I think you were the victim of autocorrect when you wrote, "The cordless, slotless 101 motor (JVC specs, Henry) has a startup time of 0.6 seconds, 0.02% W. & F." You obviously meant "coreless", not cordless. My computer has now learned to accept that word without protest. Yes, based only on my L07D, there does seem to be a certain fluidity perhaps attributable to coreless motor drive. When I first fired up my L07D, I was quite enchanted; I had never really heard ANY turntable that did what it does. That was before I heard the SP10 Mk3, which sounds different but also exceptional in its own way. I was not heretofore sure about the kind of motor in the TT101. We also know that the Exclusive P3 sports a coreless motor, and there are the venerable Dual turntables. As you may know, Dual started it all. Kenwood got in a bit of legal trouble copying the Dual motor for use in the L07D, or so the story goes. |
Dear Raul,
I found the 550ML stylus at LP Gear and the Precept 220s on eBay last week, but I hesitated (and continue to hesitate) to pull the trigger, because I am quite confident that there will be another "game-changing" cartridge within a month. Either that or you will audition the 550 and find it to be not quite as good as the 440. You have a perfect right to do that, and indeed we know you will do that, it's in your nature. But it does give one pause as regards spending money. In this case, the Precept is relatively cheap so not much of a gamble I guess.
Can you put your current adoration in perspective? For example, how does the 440 stack up with your Astatic, or the Clearaudio Virtuoso, or your Technics 100Mk4 (anyone remember that one?), or the AKG P100LE (which I guess you've sold), or the DV Karat Nova and the MC2000, for that matter. Thanks. |
Dear Raul, Do you ever go back to one of your earlier "reference" cartridges, just to get some idea where you are in your odyssey? (Surely, Odysseus himself did not chart so arduous a course as yours through a sea of cartridges.) I guess you do do that, since there is periodic mention of the Ortofon MC2000. But do you refer back occasionally to the Acutex M320 or the AT20SS or the Empire D4000, from time to time? |
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. |
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. |
Dear Nandric, Don't you think that, for audiophiles, the descriptive "crap" does have a categorical meaning? Once this or that has been designated as "crap", surely none of us would like to touch it. Unless of course, one man's crap is another man's.... ice cream.
Dear Raul, Perhaps I need to reduce my tranquilizer dose; I actually found myself pretty much agreeing with all your generalizations about Japanese gear. You rather crystallized my biases as well as you did your own, with one small difference: I rather like Luxman. Not "the best", but always at least good. All the Accuphase stuff always sounded "gray" to me. HP correctly described Mark Levinson gear, while he also made the reputation of that company and probably made a lot of money for ML himself. As regards transistors in phono stages, I would agree that bipolar (and fully balanced) is the way to go in MC stages, but in MM stages there is no need for ANY transistor, because tubes are sufficiently quiet to do the job. But this is where we have always differed.
Did Dave G comment that the Precept with the 550 stylus was "caramel"- colored? Dang-it! If Dave heard it that way, I probably will too. But no judgement yet from Raul (comparing 440 to 550)? When it does come, remember that I predicted Raul would prefer the 440. There is a kind of cosmic certainty to that. |
Ditto to what Dave and Raul wrote. I periodically get ambitious and do things to improve in one way or another the circuitry (most often the power supplies) of my audio equipment. You would be surprised to learn how much difference a better power supply configuration can make to the sound of a given circuit. The point is that every time I do any such upgrades, I need to re-evaluate everything else, because I will hear things I did not hear before or differences that were previously inaudible. (Not every "upgrade" is an upgrade, of course. Some of the things I have tried have needed to be undone, a step in the wrong direction.) The most profound revelation (a real up upgrade) was last year after I made major changes to the input circuit of my ESLs. |
Dear Audpulse, How can a cartridge that describes itself as "MC" be totally innovative and unlike anything else we know about? An MC is an MC. I pose this question in order to trick you into telling us more about it, of course.
I think there was a time in audio history, probably prior to the hegemony of MC cartridges, when using a sapphire or ruby cantilever was a marketing ploy, as much as anything else. On the other hand, I rather like the ruby cantilever-ed cartridges that I have heard, and I think JCarr's statement was either disingenuous or a statement of his opinion, as Raul says, much as I may admire JCarr for his fund of knowledge and his willingness to enter into our discussions. It may also be the case that ruby/sapphire does not work so well with MC designs. I can't actually think of an MC with a ruby cantilever; there was one from Australia with sapphire, I think.
I wonder why no one has brought up the cactus needle cantilever espoused by Sound Smith. Has anyone heard one of those? Is there a diamond on the end of the cactus needle or does the end of the cactus needle do the actual tracking? (I could look this up but too lazy.) If the latter, the idea is VERY appealing; no concerns are glued vs press-fitted styli, energy transfer, etc. |
Dear Nicola,
Thank you for your comment about SoundSmith. But perhaps you misunderstood me. I have all the proper B&O hardware to mount my MMC1 in a conventional headshell. My lament is that said hardware "sucks", as Frege might have put it, if he were ever to have made a definitive statement. There are too many electrical contacts in the signal path, and the mounting components are made of, shall we say, cheap plastic. In the modern era of titanium-bodied cartridges and the like, the B&O hardware amounts to a joke. So far as I know, Mr. Ledermann can supply a replacement piece (when he has them) for the B&O adapter (for $50!!!!), but I don't think it is any more rigid than the original. What's needed is a complete re-thinking of the adapter design and then to re-make it of truly rigid non-resonant materials. |
Just to be clear, I did not bring up the subject to support any notion of my own. I just thought it would make an interesting topic to kick around here. In fact, my new bias is toward MM and MI and away from MC, but it's only a "bias", not a pronouncement. Of course, and beyond any doubt, all theories are secondary to the listening pleasure one can derive from any cartridge.
You will note that in follow-up posts, someone asked about low inductance, low output MM cartridges. Mark Kelly points out that this can be done using modern magnets which would require fewer wire coils and thus produce much less inductance, which would ameliorate the (in my opinion) red herring that John trotted out. (Can you trot out a red herring? Maybe I should have written "Trojan horse".) Then also, someone else brought up the Stanton 980LZS, which if I recall has about 10-fold less inductance than a typical MM but still about 100X more inductance than a typical MC. So what about the newest Clearaudio MMs, like the new Maestro? Isn't one of the selling points the use of a new very modern magnet structure? Does the new Maestro, as a result, have very low inductance? What does Grado use in their low output induced magnet line? |
I don't really know JE, but he is a frequent contributor on VA and seems to have a legit engineering background. That said, he tends to go by the numbers rather than by the ears in most of his opinions (except he does admit to loading his Denon DLS1 with 20 ohms(!), based on how it sounds best.) Now, if his thesis on electrical resonance is erroneous, as you propose, then there is no further point. I do think that the phase business, occurring as it does at the extreme high end of human hearing, is rather irrelevant. Further, because the electrical phase shifts only once and by 180 degrees over a very narrow band of frequencies, I would hazard a guess that it would be benign, even for the few cocker spaniels that might hear its sonic effects. The fact that Mark Kelly did not jump on John's calculations and point out errors led me to believe that his basic thesis was correct. Perhaps Mark was preoccupied. One thing John left out, so far as I am concerned, was where does the load resistance figure into his equation? There is no load R quantity in his equation for resonant frequency, yet his "data" (computer-generated, not actual measurements, I think) show a profound effect of R. Also (I pointed this out either in an email to Don or here), his graph for the MC cartridge assumes a 1M load resistor, i.e., no load. No one does that. |
Don, There are so many "best cartridge(s) ever produced" that one could start a collection only consisting of them. I have several "second best cartridges ever produced", but none of the "best".
Tomorrow or Wednesday, I will have received my Grace Ruby with new LC stylus tip, by SS. Surely it will be "one of the best cartridges ever produced", or at least I promise to say that it is. |
Guess what. I don't hate digital, and I too just purchased a new device, an Oppo BDP105. I bought it to replace my highly tweaked Sony SCD777ES, which I have owned for a decade. But, alas, the Sony developed a fault that no one can fix. The Oppo was a "compromise" choice, because I could not figure out how to wade through all the baloney on the internet these days surrounding digital components. I figure that if I don't like it for audio, I still have one of the world's best DVD and BlueRay players for video. I've listened to it with standard RBCD, and so far I like it very much. It allows direct access to its very high quality internal DAC via USB, so I plan to connect to my Mac laptop and test hi-rez downloads, which should be fantastic. But, Raul, the difference between RBCD via the Oppo and a top quality LP via a great cartridge, tonearm, and turntable, is not in bandwidth, distortion, noise floor. Obviously, digital kills vinyl on all of those measurable criteria. But vinyl has an elusive quality of "real life", for want of a better phrase, that I have not so far heard from digital. Also, vinyl can transmit very low level ambient cues that are sometimes lost in digital. I may change my mind when I do get finally to hear hi-rez computer downloads into the Oppo DAC. One should always keep an open mind.
The Sony has been broken for so long that I cannot really say for sure that I remember how it sounded, but I venture to guess that the Oppo on RBCD is just as good if not better.
By the way, I am less than 80 years old. |
The only thing I take away from the above few posts is that I agree with Raul on the notion that a high quality digital source is very valuable to use as a reference in order to know what is happening in our analog rigs. For many months I was without a digital source due to the inexplicable malfunction of my Sony CDP. During that period I made a few important changes to my system, but I did not feel that I had enough data to evaluate them until I could re-establish a digital source, which I finally did do by purchasing the Oppo BDP105. This is not to claim that the 105 is an "ultimate" digital source that could not be bettered; it is only to say that implementing the 105 in my system has finally enabled me to understand much better what else is going on with new cartridges, phono stage modifications, and amplifier and speaker upgrades. This is because digital is reproducible from one day to the next and from one CD or SACD, or DVDA, or internet hi-rez source, to the next. The qualities are a dependable constant. Also, digital is great if you want to read a book or need background for a party. (Kidding Raul, sort of.) |
Later, Confucius was hit by a falling piano. If only he had known....
(But in Confucius' defense, I don't think he said it.)
Raul, Only one little thing: 32 bits is "needed" only if the machine has a volume control that operates in the digital domain. In that case, 32 bits is a distinct advantage vs 24 bit resolution, because attenuation of the signal does not produce audible losses to the low level detail of the music. If there is no digital volume control, I don't think any of us would hear a difference between 24 bits and 32 bits. (That's not merely my opinion; there are facts that support the idea.) But 192kHz is said to be worth having. |
I feel like Rumpelstiltskin. I went to sleep with an NOS Precept 550ML stylus, several days ago when last I looked at this thread, and tonight I wake up to find that I have been defrauded. You see, my "550ML" also has a blue colored plastic structure. Raul, if you are discussing fair compensation with the vendor, please include me in the class action suit. I think very little of these internet feeders of our insatiable habit. Next I know, someone else will be stepping on my heroine dose. |
I bought a used PC220XE, complete with stylus, on which to mount my now discredited "PCN550ML". Could it be that I will be happy with the 220? I think I will have a look at the stylus assembly under magnification, but I cannot take photos like Dave did. |
Fleib, I never said or implied that the Stanton 980/981LZS is comparable in inductance to an LOMC. I am quite aware that its inductance is much higher. I did not look up the number, but you wrote "<1mH" for the Stanton, so assuming an actual 1mH, that would make the inductance about 10X to 20X higher than that of a typical LOMC (the Hagerman website says that HOMCs can go as high as 5mH), but it also makes the Stanton several hundred times lower in inductance than a typical MM, which was my point. If one were to design an all-out MM these days, I would think that low inductance is a design goal. And in this era of high-gain phono stages, a low output is not much of a problem. Too bad CA went for the commercially viable goal of touting high output. They might in fact have made two versions, with high and low output/high and low inductance, to satisfy guys like us. |
Acman, Stanton fan here too. Grace Ruby fan, too, in my case. When you say "550", may I assume you refer to the bogus blue 550ML stylus that I, Dave, Don, Raul, and apparently you purchased from LPGear? Or do you have a real one? |
What about putting a SoundSmith ruby cantilever and LC stylus on the Precept 220XE? For their "regular" version, the cost of $250 is only a bit more than what we paid for the bogus 550ML stylus, and results should be far superior. The question is only whether the result would be any better than the Grace Ruby with the TOTL ruby cantilever and select LC stylus. Probably not. |
Don, Could it not be said that you got what you say you hoped for, "screwed"? I know I feel screwed by LPGear, but perhaps it was nothing personal. |
Using the magnifier provided on eBay, I can already see that the mating of the stylus to the cantilever, and the crushed "U" shape of the cantilever where it mates to the stylus in the LP Gear imitation, are not the same as what you've got there. So, there is every reason to suppose it is authentic. You dog.
But we don't even know whether it sounds good, heh-heh. |
Dear Don and Dent, I am very puzzled by Victor's statement as you (Don) report it. This seems contrary to the very raison d'etre of a company calling itself "Balanced" Audio Technology. Without having researched the VK10, I too would assume it has a true balanced circuit inside. I use an Atma-sphere MP1, which is for sure a balanced device. One of the greatest benefits of balanced phono is lack of any hum. I cannot imagine why you had a hum problem in balanced mode, unless there is something amiss. I think Victor's advice to switch to SE mode is rather flippant. As a maker of your phono stage, I think he has an obligation to help you solve the issue, rather than to suggest you avoid it. On the other hand, I hold Victor in very high regard, so I don't know what to think.
I personally have run tonearm/cartridge combos that were giving me hum problems with my other (SE) phono stage into the MP1, and I was rewarded by dead silent backgrounds. (By the way, Dentdog, you should consider the Atma-sphere MP3. It is balanced and more reasonable in cost than an MP1, if cost is an issue.) I have never ever encountered any hum with a true balanced phono hook-up, and there are some other inherent advantages to running cartridges in balanced mode, as well. More output for one. |
Dear Halcro,
I just bought a malfunctioning TT101 in the context of a QL10. I got the Victor tonearm and plinth along with the TT101, at a price about equal to the value of the Victor tonearm alone. Yes, I am bragging. I have the hubris to think that I or Bill Thalmann can fix the TT101. But we'll see. Of course, there is a chance I bought a boat anchor plus a tonearm.
Guys, I don't want to argue further about whether cartridges are "balanced" or not. Don, for all I know you may be correct about some or all of those vintage cartridges you mention, because they ARE vintage, and as I said myself, some of the older cartridges do use a common ground strap. All I can say to that question is that when I owned the Ayre p5Xe, I used it exclusively for these vintage MM and MI cartridges and always in full balanced mode, and it was always dead silent.
But this has nothing to do with why you (or whoever it was that is using a BAT VK10) need a special plug when using the RCA inputs. I think this has to do with grounding pin3 of the XLR. In an XLR, by convention, pin2 carries the positive phase of the signal, while pin3 carries the negative phase and pin1 is connected to audio ground. If you run single-ended, pin3 has got to be returned to ground. That's probably what that plug does. My guess is that inside the VK10, the "hot" pin of the RCA is returned to pin2 of the XLR. Then the "ground" side of the RCA must be connected to BOTH pins1 and 3 of the XLR. |
I did some reading on the VK10. Although I found nothing that directly addresses my question about the circuit design, I did find plenty to convince me that the VK10 must be truly balanced, from input to output. There was one mention of a built-in step-up transformer, presumably for LOMCs. If there IS a SUT in there, then using that may render the input to SE mode. So, I can only think that Victor was just reporting his subjective opinion, when he stated he could not hear a difference between SE and balanced inputs.
The argument about the inherent nature of a phono cartridge is of a different nature. It cannot be a matter of opinion; a particular cartridge either is or isn't balanced. As I said, some older Decca cartridges just have 3 output pins, only one of which is ground. Thus the grounds for the two channels are indeed strapped together, and the cartridge is single-ended. I don't know of any other cartridges, new or old, built like that, but I guess there must be a few. In the vast majority of cases, the two "ground" pins on a cartridge are isolated from one another. The ground pin, in the case of a moving coil for example, is connected to one side of the coil. The hot pin for that same channel is connected to the other side of the same coil. At either end, you would see an identical signal that is 180 degrees out of phase with the signal at the other end. This is the essence of a balanced signal. True, as Victor pointed out, there is no ground reference; a cartridge can be used equally well in SE mode for that reason. But as soon as you connect a cartridge to a balanced phono stage using an XLR connector, you have provided the ground reference for the (balanced) signal. End of story. |
Fleib, You wrote, "Unless the parts in both sides of the preamp are perfectly matched, and not almost perfectly, performance is worse." Can you explain? If there is not perfect matching between the two phases, then one does not get optimum CMR, for sure. But why would performance be "worse"? It is not so in my experience. Using a balanced tube phono stage, I am quite sure that matching is not perfect, but I nevertheless perceive a benefit. For one thing, hum is usually common mode, and there is clearly a better S to N ratio with balanced as regards that common bugaboo of phono (hum). |
Dear Fleib, Your argument about duplication of parts sounds exactly like one that I heard several years ago from someone who is associated with Mapleshade Audio. That was their argument against balanced anything. With all due respect, I guess this is a matter of seeing a glass as half empty or half full. As I see it, there is no doubt that a balanced circuit requires twice as many parts as does an SE circuit. However, the signal per se does NOT travel through twice as many parts as does the signal traversing an SE circuit. As you note, the positive and negative halves of the signal are treated separately. Thus, so far as the full sine wave or complex wave form that is music is concerned, it has not been "processed" by twice as many parts.
One analogy I came up with is: suppose we have 10 coffee beans. You and I, as positive and negative halves of a balanced circuit, have been given the job of taking them from the dining room into the kitchen. I keep 5 and give you 5. But there are two doorways into the kitchen; you use one, and I use the other. Assume the 10 coffee beans are an audio signal. Now, once those 10 beans are in the kitchen, would you say that each element of the signal has gone through two doorways? No, the 10 beans each saw one doorway. Same as if we both used the same (SE) doorway.
The net effect of a balanced pathway in terms of parts is no different from an SE one, so far as parts can introduce nonlinearity and distortion. This is always assuming that capacitors and resistors are as well matched as possible. Further, in an amplifier, treating the signal in balanced mode from input through to the typical P-P output stage has the enormous advantage that no phase-splitting is needed. Surely you would agree that phase-splitting, necessary to feed a P-P output stage in any kind of amplifier, is almost always a flawed process.
But this does not answer my question to you, which was how can slight mis-matching of the gain elements in a balanced circuit, which is always there with tubes, I admit, result in fidelity that is "worse" (your word) than SE? You may be correct; I think I read such an argument put forward by Mark Kelly on AA. Iv'e never heard a problem even using imperfectly balanced tube gear. I do agree that CMR is reduced from ideal when gain is mismatched for each half. |
Fleib, (Yes, my main speakers are SL 845PXs with drastic mods to the input stage of the spkrs.) As Nandric is fond of reminding me, I also have a pair of Beveridge 2SWs in my basement. For 6 months Bill Thalmann has been working on their direct-drive amplifiers. (Well, he is not doing six months worth of work; for 5 months they just sat in his shop. The poor man is overwhelmed with work fixing all the broken direct-drive turntables in the US.) Anyway, Bill will probably be finished with the Bev amplifiers this week, and I look forward to hearing the speakers, finally. I have a pair of transmission line woofers that I built myself maybe 40 years ago, using the old KEF B139 woofer, and I plan to take those out of mothballs to provide bass for the Beveridges. Maybe I am a pessimist, but I predict I will find out there is something amiss with the Beveridge ESL panels and then need to fix THAT before I really get to know what they can do, but the jury is out.
The MAT02 takes the worry out of any noise that might be created using an all-tube phono stage with LOMC cartridges (a lot of which gets cancelled anyway in balanced mode). I can't prove it to you, unless you come over to listen, but the phono is DEAD quiet with ANY cartridge you care to throw at it. The irony is that now I am enamored of these much higher output cartridges, I have been using an SE tube phono stage to amplify their output, because the MP1 has too much gain for them. The outboard phono feeds the MP1 linestage section for MMs and MIs. So, in that case I am only balanced from the linestage on to the speakers. By the way, Raul told me that he uses the very same MAT02 at the input to the phono in his phonolinepreamp. In my case, it is the bottom half of a hybrid cascode, using a tube at the top. The plate voltage matching is within 1%.
I still have the 550ML stylus we all bought from LP Gear. I have not opened the box and was planning to return it. But I looked at it yesterday (the box is transparent plastic), and the color of mine is a deeper, darker blue than is the one that was photographed and shown here to be carrying an alu cantilever and probably elliptical or spherical stylus. Then Dave bought the "real" 550ML and showed us that the color of the stylus assembly is a darker blue than is the bogus one. Could it be that just by luck, I got a real 550ML stylus assembly? I wish I could figure it out without opening the box. Did anyone else get something different from the one that was "exposed" here on the thread as not original? |
Tubed1, My Grado TLZ is still here. Early on after I started following this thread, I got it out of mothballs for an audition. The results were not as stellar as is my memory of the performance of the cartridge. I had concluded that the suspension had stiffened during 25 years of lack of use. Perhaps I did not stick with it long enough; it may have loosened up over time. Also, perhaps a different tonearm would bring out its former glory. I need to re-visit. After all is said and done, a re-tip by one of our skilled professionals is most likely to do wonders for it, but it won't sound like a Grado TLZ after that. Not really a problem, since I can hardly remember what it sounded like except that it was very good.
Henry, My QL10 arrived today, or at least most of it did; it was shipped in 3 boxes, one of which is still in transit. The TT101 chassis assembly is absolutely mint, truly like new. So too are the plinth, dust cover, and 7045 tonearm. However, the one item that did not yet arrive is the platter, so I cannot assess the function. As you may recall, I bought it with the knowledge that it was running "fast", and "speed can not be adjusted down to normal" (quote from seller). As you may also recall, the seller was running it on 120V, after buying it at an estate sale. I am hoping that when I feed it the correct AC at 100V, all will be well or see below.
Now I have the service manual, I see that the TT101 has a DC motor. The AC input voltage from the wall is immediately converted to +/-12VDC and +/-5VDC output voltages that then feed various parts of the very complex circuits. If simply supplying 100V does not fix the glitch, the second best scenario is that inputting 120V blew one of the voltage regulators in the power supply; that would be an easy fix. |
Dear Raul, You wrote, "Lewm, the transducer is the cartridge not the cantilever and that's why we hear what you are saying. So what?"
Couple of things: (1) To say that the cartridge not the cantilever is the transducer is a semantic argument. And in any case, I did not mean to say that the cantilever per se is the transducer; I meant to say (and did say) that the interaction of the cantilever with the magnet structure (in an MC) or with the coils (in an MM) are what allows the conversion of the mechanical energy imparted to the stylus tip in the groove to electrical energy that is the music signal (at the output of the cartridge). That's the definition of "transduction"; mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy.
(2) You say, "So what?" The cantilever is vibrating like crazy, that's what. I suggested that the faint music that can be heard in the vicinity of a cartridge is the result of cantilever vibration. I don't know for sure that this is the case, but that would be my best guess. If you know something different, I am here to learn. To say that I am hearing the "cartridge" tells us nothing. |
Nandric, That is "bullshit". Do you think the huge financial concerns that caused the 2008 collapse are either American OR European? They don't. They act only in their own self interest, and they have no nationality whatever. You need to learn more about capitalism. And really, in the end, what difference does it make? If you just hate the USA, that's your business; I feel sorry for you. |
I thought I would raise my head here to say I truly dislike nearly every HOMC cartridge I have ever heard. In fact, the only "good" one was my van den Hul Colibri, which I bought from Mike Lavigne. It had been specially made for Mike to have about 1mV output, if you want to classify that as HO. Over the years before that, I owned BPS (Yuk! I totally agree with Dover, only I have not hit mine with a hammer yet.), the later version of BPS (Yuk, again), Benz Glider I and II (Sand in the public eye, if ever there was such a thing.), Transfiguration Esprit (The most decent sounding one in this category with which I am familiar, but does not hold a candle to any of the best MMs and MIs we have been playing with. Nor does it hold a candle to the great Transfiguration LOMCs.) |
Dear Nandric, The only time I felt that Raul was "insulted" in a way that was inappropriate to our usual civil discussions was during one of his many encounters with one of the Germans. During one of those encounters, I felt there was a borderline explicit ethnic slur directed at Raul, for being Mexican. Otherwise, I think you would agree it was usually Raul doing the "insulting", if one takes criticism of one's audio system as an insult. However, I would agree Raul was never guilty of an ad hominem insult. If he left the thread for such a reason, then I wonder if he is logical. |
Dear Raul,
I just read your response to my post wherein I dismissed the Alchemist and the Talisman and those who loved them in days of yore. Your points in response have some merit, at least as regards the notion that I should have no opinion, because I have not heard them. Touche'. I am still not going to make the effort to acquire either.
But I have to say also that the remainder of your response reads to me as nothing short of a defense of the "AHEE", the mythical diabolic force that has led us all astray, according to another of your hypotheses. Surely, Cordesman, King, Holt, and HP, all of whom you hold up as experts who commented favorably on the sound of the two cartridges in question, must be regarded as charter members of the AHEE. (This is not to say that I have any beef with any of those gentlemen, except to say that Cordesman's system, such as it was then, would have made me sick, if I had to listen to it every day, and that the other three are at least a level or two above him in their audio pedigrees. Cordesman is or was a highly regarded and well paid US defense analyst, in real life. He often used to testify before Congress on this or that weapons system. He lives near me.) |
Raul,
I know a few guys who do as you do. Some of them use a single Russian-made SSG type silver mica capacitor at the input of their amplifiers, value chosen for 6db/octave hi-pass filter at whatever frequency. Some very critical guys say that the SSGs are essentially totally transparent. The problem I am running into is that the Bevs were designed to go down to 100Hz or 80Hz with a very steep active hi-pass filter (18db/octave). It's hard to mimic that with the passive approach and without a large insertion loss. If I were to use a first-order filter, then I would need to start rolling off at 200Hz or even higher; I'd hate to attenuate the Bevs in that frequency range, because they are so good. So, I am "stuck" with an active crossover. (Marchand actually makes a passive crossover that generates a 24db/octave slope. I am curious about that one.) Right now I am mostly contemplating external active crossovers, altho I never met an active crossover I could really love. |
Don't you guys wonder what happened to Raul? I do. I hope he is OK, and I look forward to his next thread: "Who needs MC cartridges, when we have MM?"
But in my book, Raul (and the rest of us who contributed) has "given" me MM cartridges. Were it not for this thread, I never would have scratched the itch I'd had for a decade or more. |
"This could be because cutting lathe amplifiers almost never contain resistors that are accurate to 0.1%, or capacitors that are accurate to 0.5% (according to the LP cutting engineers that I have spoken with), this could be because the RIAA lookup tables (that an EE would use to help design phono stages or cutting-lathe electronics) in various engineering articles didn't always agree with each other. Whatever the reasons, differences between the RIAA EQ curve (as defined by equations rather than look-up tables) and what individual cutting lathes are wont to produce should be expected."
Wish I could have cited that paragraph to Raul in connection with my several arguments with him about the necessity for absolute RIAA accuracy in a phono stages. For a given LP, a slightly inaccurate phono RIAA filter might serendipitously result in a "flatter" frequency response during playback than would a "perfect" phono RIAA filter. This was in the context of his insisting that only SS phono stages are worth thinking about, because of the probability that they would be more RIAA-accurate than tube types. This is not to say that I support sloppy RIAA design; I only maintain that the long term accuracy of a very well designed tube phono stage is sufficient. |
"Diamond encrusted titanium cantilever."
Sounds like something you'd give your girlfriend or a prize awarded on a daytime TV quiz show.
Fleib, You really seem to have a good grasp on these concepts. I typically do understand what you're talking about, but the details recede into dim memory in between visits to this thread. I got into a brief brouhaha with a guy on Vinyl Asylum who claimed that he "scientifically" proved MCs are inherently superior to MMs, just based on that issue of high frequency resonance that is peculiar to MMs. Wish I had you by my side to debunk his BS by pointing out the other issues that apply to MCs. He went on to say that it was all well and good to have a personal preference for a particular MM but having that view was close to delusional, because "science" says otherwise. My retort was mostly to point out the hf anomalies of MCs, their need for much higher phono stage gain, and their tendency to inferior tracking ability compared to MMs, in general. But I also was careful to say that I personally do not choose to make such a general judgement of "all MMs" vs " all MCs". |
