The A90 was, without a doubt, setup incorrectly.
It's no secret that the Replicant 100 is an extremely demanding stylus profile in terms of setup. Those who are willing to spend a little time and patience, especially with the SRA, will be rewarded.
It also has not been excluded from the review, so please do not manipulate the facts. The review will appear in issue 208 (as was mentioned as the second half of the sentence - the part that you chose not to quote).
Louis/Ortofon |
How wonderful! Here we get to know that even auditors are struggling setting up a cartridge. Do we wonder? Honestly No! They are in such a rush today, they don`t even have the time to test the units for more than 20 days usually - not for the 3 months as it used to be in good old times.
We should not blame anyone, we are all part of the fast modern times.
Magazines change like our habits in looking closely at the advantages of some products facing not a big marketing support by well known brands or authors. |
First I did not leave anything out to manipulate anything. Second you are suggest that tas does not know how to set up a cart. Then all the other carts must have been set up improperly as well and only the manufacturer knows the correct way to set it up. Or it was defective. only 500 being made and this one was defective. |
From my experience quite a few cartridge manufacturers have some duds out there. I have heard about this with the above brands and have experienced it with a few brands myself. Not difficult to assume that the TAS review got a bad sample. But...., the true question is to determine the sample variation within the brand. Some are better than others. |
auditors struggling to setup? They are neither qualified nor have any special talent or listening skills. After listening to a couple of reviewers' systems I could only look up to heavens to save the readers. I am suprised people still pay attention to magazine reviews when a wealth of information from more knowledgable people is available all over the place.
Thuchan: I would bet my money on your opinion than TAS or Stereophile reviews :) |
Thuchan: I would bet my money on your opinion than TAS or Stereophile reviews :) Just curious, have you heard Thuchan's system? Me, I do not lay my trust in one's opinion unless I've personally heard their system. |
Gallant_diva, thanks - you are not the only one who told me his opinion (also people who listened to the system). Nevertheless when it comes to listening rooms most reviewers`rooms look a little under-optimized.Of course they have to change equipments all the time. If you have a good ear you are still able to hear differences - somehow... |
"Just curious, have you heard Thuchan's system?"
No, but I heard some reviewers' systems and that is why I cannot trust their opinion :) Most of them do not make any sense anyway and there is an underlying conlict of interest because the magazine exists to make money. And what listening diploma or certification do they have that makes their hearing more credible?
But I will take something worth considering if it is recommended by someone whose ears I can trust (but that does not include magazine reviewers). I used to read them 20 years ago for serious consideratio, then 10 years ago for humor, and now I do not even find any humor in them.
"Me, I do not lay my trust in one's opinion unless I've personally heard their system"
Yeah, that is ideal it could also take away you trut ;-) |
I used to read them 20 years ago for serious consideratio, then 10 years ago for humor, and now I do not even find any humor in them... May I help you? When you read this (it means that) The Audio Adventure In spite of the measurement anomalies, this speaker is clearly a state-of-the-art product. (It didn't SOUND broken when we gave it our top rating) It was definitely Borderline Class A. (It isn't that good, but it's sooo expensive and they're letting me keep it --- G-d I feel so cheap!) Light years ahead of the competition. (The competition won't give us a review sample) This preamp is the new reference. (We aint giving it back, and we aint payin' for it either) We hire only the best writers. (We'll hire any audiophile who recognizes a pencil two out of three tries) This product had me pulling one record after another from my collection. ( I listened to all five of my records) The images in the soundstage had that elusive and seductive sense of palatable presence. (I haven't had sex since my wife left me and I'm starting to hallucinate) Every once in a long while a product comes along that redefines the way we think about audio. (I love my DSS satellite system) |
Anyone (preferably with personal experience) care to describe the similarities/differences between the A90 with the ZYX UNIverse? recently i've been involved in some tonearm development; to be perfectly clear my 'involvement' is me watching. i own a Talea tonearm and the designer has been making some improvements. he has used my room and system to verify performance on the changes he has made. in the last month or so he has been here 3 or 4 times. he uses his own Ortofon A90. he also owns a ZYX Universe. last fall; when he first brought his original prototype Talea arm over he used the Universe. i don't want to put any words in his mouth. but he has basically told me that the A90 is simply a better cartridge and is what he uses for his arm development now. when he first brought his Universe over i preferred my A90 in my system since we switched the two cartridges back and forth. not that the Universe is not a fine cartridge. but the back and forth on the same arm exposed the Universe as simply not as detailed or dynamic. i have now watched him set-up the A90 maybe 20-25 times in my room.....and then we listen. the A90 on my Talea is a force of nature. on the new Talea it is mystical. |
The only thing proven is that person, singular i.e. one set of ears, prefers the ortofon. Nothing more.
By no means does it make the ortofon "better".
It's strictly the listener's decision.
The "better" and/or "best" argument is really getting old.
All cartridges at that level are wonderful and most of us could live with any of them.
IMO |
I don't think it's a stretch at all to suggest that a review sample was not set up to its fullest capability, when considering the known history of the Replicant 100 diamond. I also don't think it was a faulty cartridge, as the text of the review pre-print indicated what we felt were textbook SRA issues.
This is certainly not the first time this has happened - we have heard other reports of the very same performance with former models of cartridge like the MC-5000, Ortofon's flagship model back in the day of extreme-low-output cartridges. The consensus was identical - the alignment, particularly stylus rake angle, was crucial to getting the Replicant diamond to track to its fullest potential.
Ortofon is not faulting anybody at TAS for this. When your cartridge is the subject of multiple setup instructional articles in other high end publications, it is plainly evident that the cartridge requires a precise alignment job that goes beyond the average setup.
Louis/Ortofon |
Ldorio
Since you represent Ortofon, can you please advise what are the recommended operating parameters to ensure you get the best out of the A90.
The manual say absolutely nothing about whether the tonearm needs to be level, raised, what the SRA is supposed to be for a replicant 100 stylus, etc.
The only thing the manual says is recommended 2.3gms tracking.
I am sure all owners of the A90 including myself will appreciate Ortofon's official setup parameters
cheers |
If I am correct(if not please correct me), I believe, that like most carts the only recommendation that comes with the cart is the VTF. Every other adjustment is by ear. Although, the reviewers(HP) used a Fasgometer to set the Azimuth(It sounds like a cool tweek gadget for $250). Now, as far as the SRA is concerned, on my tt(walker black diamond) the only way I know of to adjust the SRA is with the VTA adjustment. Unless, you plan on shimming or bending something, I know of no other way. As far as I know there are no meters to test the VTA or SRA, they are adjusted by ear. Seeing that all the carts in the review were adjusted the same way for the A90 to be done incorrectly would mean that there is some special set up that has not been shared with the buyers/owners of the cart. Also this was not an "average set up". I have nothing against this cart. I hope it is a great one. The price seems reasonable and if it were as good as stated it would be a real deal. It just seem hard to imagine, with all the effort they put into this review and set up. I mean(ae written in the review), "Vertical Tracking Angle adjustment; an HP specialty". All I am saying is I would sample, research and/or test myself before buying. Or at least wait a few months to see if the follow up review comes out with an explination or a good review. |
Hi, does anyone know what exactly the problem was with the cartridge that led them to suspect it was faulty?
Thanks, Simon. |
@Koegz: The $250 Fozgometer measures crosstalk and channel levels; that's it. There are more effective technical ways to optimize azimuth. For setting SRA at the correct 92 degree angle a microscope may be the best approach. The alignment service I provide now includes this as well as listening to optimize SRA and VTA. |
I have problems to believe that a company like Ortofon delivers "faulty" cartridges. I guess the "problem" has nothing to do with them. |
The A90 has been the subject of multiple articles by Michael Fremer which explain just how critical the SRA/VTA is during setup. These articles go as far as to explain these advanced setup techniques and advocate the use of a USB digital microscope among other things. Of course one could still do all of the setup by ear, but the goal of using such instruments is to dramatically shorten the amount of time that it will take to achieve perfect alignment and SRA.
And as far as the notion that one should experience the cartridge before buying - I wholeheartedly agree. For anybody who will be attending Rocky Mountain Audio Fest this year, there will be ample opportunity for interested listeners to experience the A90.
Louis/Ortofon |
But what was the problem, distortion, to lean, bright, please enlighten me if you can. I am genuinely interested.
Simon. |
Audiofeil......AMEN!!!!
Downunder....I agree with you re: SRA adjustment.
Ldorio....If SRA need to be adjusted with a USB microscope perhaps every A90 should come with one. Or, at the very least, Ortofon should provide a chart as a starting point to obtain the desire 92 degrees SRA. Example below.
2.0g.....VTA at 5mm above parallel
2.3g.....VTA at 10mm above parallel
2.5g.....VTA at 15mm above parallel
Disclaimer: I own an A90 and a XV1's and they are both sonic marvel....in my system of course. |
I have been giving this a lot of thought. I understand Essentialaudio what you are saying, but, to me, it is absurd to say the only way to install an anolog cart is with a digital microscope. So I went on clearaudio's site. They have a simple set of instructions to install the cart. To set the vta you measure the distance between the lowest part of the cart body and the test record, .2mm to .5mm. Now if you think about it, as your 92 degree angle, which I have read about elsewhere, it is all MATH! The cantilever should be the same angle off the cart body, with in a reasonable(minute) limit of error, on all the ones of a particular model and brand. Once you know that angle, the rest is easy to figure out. Hence the goldfinger solution. A simple, cheap set of feeler gages, then adjust by ear. |
Ldorio. You have given us no help here.
Since when did Michael Fremer work for Ortofon?
I am asking you as a representative from Ortofon. Shouldn't you know. If you don't, ask Ortofon head office.
You indicate TAS screwed up the setup of the A90. Did you ask them to contact or read Fremer articles on how to set up the A90 correctly?
BTW, I own an A90.
Smoffat, very good simple idea that ortofon could do for all cartridges having the replicant 100 stylus profile. |
I think, some of you are at RMAF.
When someone from Ortofon is there too, how about some adjustment lessons for the discriminated analog Listener with the A-90?
Louis can show us, that the adjustment battle can be a long one.
TAS will give you answers about their experience that a test report will be even more successful with some nice ads.
Mike can tell everyone, that this cartridge is good enough to develop a new tonearm significantly.
Listeners can judge about being able to hear differences after 10 min of adjustment and 1,5h of it.
Audio-phile can give his final comment like "Best is, what you like best"
and when the day is over, let's play Louis Armstrongs'
"It's a wonderful world" |
Any cartridge's stylus - the Ortofon A90's Replicant 100 evo is no positive nor negative exception - requires precise alignment.
The folks at TAS are either able to align a cartridge or not. The A90 does not require any special knowledge or any special template to get it right. It - as all phono cartridges - requires ONLY dedication and a good (suitable to the geometry of the tonearm) template.
Period.
I've heard the A90 two times now in very familiar set-ups (Thuchan's being one of them) and it certainly is one of the better cartridges and incorporates a few very smart design features.
That the top-flight Ortofon LOMCs have been neglected by the fancy high-end press in the past 20 years is a different story. Ortofon simply has never in the last 2 decades been able (or willing...) to create that common type of "hype" and "myth" around its high-end products.
Plain and kind of "nude" engineering and design rarely comes along with the emotion and "special feeling" being so over-prominent in sonic descriptions and marketing papers.
And finally Ortofon isn't that prominent in advertising space in TAS neither.
However - it is a great cartridge of our day and no audiophile with basic knowledge would accuse a miss-setting of VTA for a poor performance. VTA is - by nature and geometrical law - always a matter of "groove-compliance". With the Replicant 100, the Gyger, the vdH, Paroc, Micro-ridge, Shibata or any other stylus type. Its all about the position of the polished area towards the groove angle. |
I haven't heard the A90 yet, but Dertonarm hit the nail on the head. The thing that matters is matching playback stylus SRA to groove SRA, and a microscope can't help with that.
Groove SRA is different for virtually every LP you own, and you can't see it with any microscope short of an SEM. Even LP's of the same thickness have different groove SRA's. (Exception: unless they were cut on the same lathe with an identical cutting stylus set up to the same parameters - good luck finding that).
Therefore:
1. If playback SRA will be optimized for each LP, using a microcope to set some pre-determined angle is pointless. If I'm going to adjust until each LP sounds right anyway (and record that setting for replays) why waste the time?
2. If playback SRA will NOT be optimized for each LP, using a microcope to set some pre-determined angle is also pointless. For the "set and forget" user, this would serve no purpose except to satisfy OCD tendencies and earn their dealer some fees. If one can't hear or doesn't care about the sonic differences that groove-specific SRA makes, why take pains to set some pre-determined angle that bears little relationship to any particular LP?
The foregoing is especially true for styli with very fine contact lines, like the Ortofon Replicant. With such styli, the window for correct SRA on each LP is so narrow that a generic setting is useless. It won't make much sonic difference whether you're off by a hair or a mile.
Frankly, the microscope suggestion seems like a ploy to tie gullible owners to dealers. If the dealer is going to stand next to your table and adjust your SRA for each LP you play, fine. Having them do it in advance with a microscope (or any other tool) is nonsense.
|
@ Downunder, Sorry to hear that you're dissatisfied with my suggestions to help set up your cartridge. I'm also sorry to hear that you're not willing to read up on the numerous articles that provide advanced insight into SRA optimization for all cartridges (not just the A90). If you are uncomfortable with the information being discussed here, then it might be worth it to inquire to your local Ortofon distributor about hiring a professional with test equipment to do it for you. For the rest of the interested parties who DO wish to investigate the topic further, I would suggest checking the Analog Corner article from Stereophile Sept 2009 and June 2010 issues. They give some very excellent information on how one can use an inexpensive digital microscope to get a side-shot of the diamond and then to adjust the VTA so that the contact area can be aligned properly. The techniques discussed for SRA aren't rocket science - they can be performed in a matter of minutes once the USB microscope is set up and focused. It's even a possibility that you might find someone at your local audio society who is willing to let you borrow one. Of course, one may also do this by ear, but as expected it does require tenacity. Even though Ortofon recommends that you get the SRA to a value that sounds best with the majority of your records, rather than adjusting for each one, I don't see why one couldn't spend some time with a digital microscope and record the corresponding VTA settings for a 160gm pressing versus a 220gm (or the values in between, perhaps). Since I'm rarely on these forums (as much as I love to chat about cartridges), anyone who has additional questions may contact me directly - [email protected] is my email address. Louis/Ortofon |
I don't see why one couldn't spend some time with a digital microscope and record the corresponding VTA settings for a 160gm pressing versus a 220gm (or the values in between, perhaps). One could, but (as I posted just above) the SRA for one 160gm record is not the same as for the next 160gm record. I've recorded optimal arm height settings on over 1,500 records from my collection. Tenacity, as you suggested. ;-) Weight/thickness is a reliable guide to a starting SRA setting ONLY when comparing on to LP's on the same label, from the same plant, cut around the same time. Weight/thickness have no value for choosing SRA in a vacuum, so just knowing where X degrees of SRA is on a 160gm record is of little value. |
@Dougdeacon, agreed, although you'd be pretty close if the record was mastered according to IEC standards. |
Dear Ldorio, if one happen to play - from time to time ... - microgroove records manufactured between 1954 and say 1990 (and I guess thats still the huge majority of vinyl out there - AND of interest) then you will encounter so many different (and huge differences indeed) cutting angles in cutting lathes between the early Fairchild to the later Neuman (and between individual samples of the same lathe-type) that the difference in groove-compliant SRA between say a Opus 3 and a Mercury SR90000 (two extremes of the range) results in about 1/2" in heights at the tonearm base of a 9" tonearm.
Back in the old days of the Mercury/RCA-collectors circle ( Sid Marks, Bob Corsetti, David Nemzer, Carol Keasler and a few others - including myself as a late member in 1988) in the later 1980ies, that was common knowledge among analog audiophiles and the VTA was precisely fine-tuned for the setting for each of the labels of interest (DECCA SXL, EMI ASD, RCA LSC etc.).
Back then none of us would have talked about VTA in any other context but groove (label....)-compliant.
Correct SRA and VTA is a direct function of the cutting angle of the record-groove in conjunction with the polished area of the stylus.
And the engineers at Ortofon-laboratories will confirm that.
IEC standards? You visit the remaining record plants and will still find many different cutting angles around.
Ever wondered why the ET2 or the early Wheaton Triplanar back in the late 1980ies/early 1990ies were that popular among serious record collectors going for the ultimate in sound (we have to include - now that's a surprise ! - the FR-64s w/B60 vta-on-the-fly base here for addressing this issue as early as 1979) ?
Because they featured easy change of VTA and precise return to earlier and different VTA settings. |
Ldorio
I never said I had any problems with setting up the A90. I have read Fremers articles and it helped a lot (it seems TAS did not no?)
Out of 4 professional reviews, only Stereophile was overwhelmingly positive, which does not relate to my listening experiences. It would seem that most reviewers don't understand how to set the A90 up correctly.
I was looking for some more generic/systematic Ortofon recommendations on how to align correct SRA for the A90.
enjoy |
Well, this has become quite an interesting discussion about the A90, SRA and grove cutting angles. There doesn't seem to be that much discussion about the PC-1. I have come to appreciate the need to adjust VTA/SRA with the A90 and because that is not the easiest adjustment to make on the SME V, and certainly not "on the fly", I'm rapidly getting the impression that on the basis of adjustability alone, the SME V and A90 may not be an ideal combination. Thank you for all of the information on this thread. |
Dear Peterayer, whether the A90 and the SME V are or are not an ideal combination has nothing to do with VTA.
It has a lot to do with the effective mass of the "V", the body mass and compliance of the A90 and the general alignment you are making (to name just the "cornerstones").
I for one would rather recommend using the A90 in the SME V.
Aside from my personal opinion that the A90 is the "better sounding" cartridge of the two, its technical parameters will nicely match the mechanical/dynamic parameters of the SME V.
VTA is a matter of dedication and the will to go the extra mile time and again to get the very best out of ANY given tonearm/cartridge combination.
It wouldn't be any other way with the PC-1... or any other cartridge .... in any other tonearm. |
@ Dertonarm
Very interesting information, indeed. Thanks! |
Hi Dertonarm,
I understand your point about VTA. I'm just saying that I've had difficulty making very small VTA adjustments in my SME V arm. A dial-type tower like that on the TriPlanar with markings would be much easier. I don't change VTA depending on record thickness because of this. |
Hi Peterayer, I've had the SME V too - back in the Eighties. Yes, it easier with the kind of tonearms like the Triplanar. However - it has nothing (read: VERY little ....) to do with record thickness, but everything (read: the HUGE portion of the whole "picture"...) with the cutting angle of the cutting head which originally cut the master for the record you are playing. As these (the cutting heads..) do (did) differ considerably in a fairly wide range in the angle they do use, it give us some headaches to get the minute detail and exact matching angle (read: VTA) with the polished area of the stylus.
The problem is system-inherent and universal.
It is the very same problem with ANY tonearm and ANY cartridge.
Some do allow easy adjustments - some don't.
Some (few....) audiophiles are very serious about matching that particular groove-compliant VTA - some audiophiles aren't even aware of the problem - and some audiophiles do not care.
To get back to the core issue: - the A90 will perform very well in a SME V.No matter whether you are willing to adjust the VTA for each record or whether you will - as most audiophiles do .... - settle for a "good compromise". |
Just to add something to the discussion. I have an Ortofon A90 in a Rega RB 1000 tonearm, mounted with the Cartridge Man Isolator. I have adjusted the arm height using spacers ( as the RB 1000 does not have VTA adjustment ). I paid much more attention on other adjustments. The correct cartridge aligment was got by using the Feickert protractor as well as using the Cartridge Man digital level made a huge difference in the sound( it is essencial ) The final adjusment was made using the Hi Fi News LP .
The A90 is amazing and it seems a very good match to the RB 1000. |
The A 80 is also a very light and small sized cart thus enabeling me to solder it into an EMT j-shell on my RMA 297. perfect match!
best & fun only -eckart |
