Dover, thank you for setting the record straight. So do you agree with Mijostyn that vintage tonearms are trash (paraphrasing his actual words which can be found in quotes above.) What I’d read about the EPA100 was that the ruby bearjngs are superb but fragile and thus in some cases have not stood the test of time. Certainly it’s a good idea to replace worn or damaged bearings. Come and see my FR64S some time; to my eye the center of mass of the CW is very near or in the plane of the LP surface. I might have qualified my original remark about the FR64S CW by noting that if you use the CW to set VTF, or a combination of the CW and the spring balancer, rather than the spring balancer alone, the CW then might end up a few mm off the plane of the LP surface, give or take. Cartridge weight would also figure into that.
|
I have not made any measurements, but 45 rpm singles were produced with a very wide diameter spindle hole. Out beyond that they had a rather wide run-out, I thought so as to trigger a changer mechanism, either in a juke box or on a home record changer. Ergo, I am very surprised to learn that the Stevenson algorithm would have anything to do with 45 rpm singles, because the music ends pretty far from the center of the record, and I doubt that the inner null point afforded by the Stevenson algorithm would lie on the playing surface. I know Chakster is a careful researcher, so I will take his claim at face value. Fact is, as Raul is very fond of pointing out, there are literally an infinite number of solutions to aligning a tonearm so that one obtains two null points on the surface of a conventional 33 rpm LP. There is nothing really special about Lofgren, Baerwald, or Stevenson, except that they were published very early in the history of the record player, and most tonearm manufacturers adopted one or the other of them. I like to note the last sentence of Fremer’s comparison piece on the 3 standards: "Keep in mind that compared to the distortions added by the rest of your system, my opinion is that all of these curves produce less."
As to Mijostyn’s blanket criticism of vintage tonearms: "Those tonearms are terrible. Because of their mass they have much higher levels of inertia and distortion, they are not neutral balance and their vertical bearings are high above the record surface." This came up at least once previously; Mijo is not easily dissuaded. Low compliance cartridges require high mass tonearms, so how can one fairly criticize a high mass tonearm based only on its high mass? And just how does high mass per se lead to "distortion", if the inertial mass is well matched to cartridge compliance? Seems to me you will add distortion if you use a very low mass tonearm with a low compliance cartridge. Also, the premise is flawed; not all vintage (Japanese) tonearms are high in effective mass. As to the vertical bearing being above the LP surface, in theory that is a valid criticism, if you are playing warped LPs. If you toss out your warped LPs (or suck them flat on your Cosmos vacuum platter), then the location of the vertical bearing with respect to the LP surface is only intellectually objectionable. And finally, many of the finest vintage tonearms, like the Technics that Chakster mentioned and like the Fidelity research FR64S and 66S, have decoupled counterweights, which reduces inertia. Not all modern expensive tonearms adopted that feature. The FR tonearms even also have counterweights placed so that the center of mass is at the LP surface, a good idea especially if you want to play warped LPs. I doubt that any modern tonearms have pivot bearings as low in friction as those used in the Technics EPA100 or B500. The EPA100 is also brilliantly designed to reduce the interplay between effective mass and cartridge compliance, which makes the tonearm compatible with a very wide range of cartridges. Etc. The sweeping negative generalizations do not hold up.
|
Mijo, this is not meant as criticism, because many of us do it, but you talk about “harmonic distortion “ when you are actually referring to tracking angle error.I am not sure that anyone has ever shown that the two are linearly related. Can you actually measure harmonic distortion of the signal emanating from a turntable and show it changes in relation to tracking angle error? I have often wondered about this. I don’t know that anyone ever made the effort to make a correlation. My subjective experience would suggest that there is very little correlation or that any effect of TAE on HD of the audio signal is minuscule. To put it another way, I would guess that what we might view as large changes in TAE have only tiny effects on HD. |
Tsushima, I have owned two samples of the SP 10 mk2. During the same timeframe, I also owned and still own an SP 10 Mk3, a Kenwood L07D, a Victor TT101, and a Denon Dp80, not to mention a highly tweaked Lenco. At one time or another I heard all these TT s in the same system. All of my turntables were fully refurbished and calibrated before I started to use them. The Technics and Denon tts were replinthed in PA slate. In this bunch, in my opinion, the SP 10mk2 came in last. I thought it had a grayish coloration, compared to any of the other direct drive turntables. I also have to disagree with Pani, when he said that the mark 2 and the mark 3 sound about the same. In my experience, there is no comparison, Mk3 is in a different world. Tonally very neutral and very precise with a big sound space.. My Mk3 has the Krebs upgrade; my mk2s did not. But even before Krebs, Mk3 was superior. |
Not a big fan of SP10 mk2, but I do agree with Atma and Chak that the OEM rubber mat is a negative and should be replaced. I think the top line Technics G series with a selected mat might outperform the mk2, but I have no experience to corroborate my hunch. For that matter, the felt mat on my Star Sapphire was also not optimal, but vacuum hold down required it. Comparing Mk2 to a full up Cosmos with Eclipse is kind of a cheap shot, IMO. The price difference is cavernous. You could add a Minus K to most vintage DDs and still be well under the cost of the fully equipped Cosmos. But I’ll not argue that the Cosmos is not excellent.
The “unrepairable” tag on the older Technics won’t wash. All needed parts, tech data, and schematics are readily available, and there are several competent repair shops. As to the bearing, caveat emptor. I’ve never owned a vintage deck that needed more than to clean and lube the bearing, and DD bearings are likely to last longer than a belt drive bearing, because no side force. |
One of the great benefits of hooking up a cartridge in balanced mode to a balanced phono stage is the total lack of hum problems. I have been doing this for decades, and I have never experienced a problem with hum using any of many cartridges. However, if you do have hum and everything is grounded to everything, then I usually start by removing some of those ground connections and listening as I go. Sometimes the grounding scheme can generate ground loops which actually cause the hum.. |
Mrm, I tried to answer the question you seemed to be asking. Incidentally, all hum is AC by definition. I inferred that sometimes you can reduce hum, if hum is a problem, by NOT grounding the TT/ tonearm to the phono stage. Also, note that the trade off for shielding is increased capacitance. The first thing I would want to try is low capacitance unshielded cables that are kept as short as possible between the tonearm and the phono stage. It is not a given that every unshielded cable will bring in RF interference. That is something you can experiment with in your home environment. If you can get away without shielding, then you have reduced the total capacitance of the cable, for any given length. |
Mr m, dedicated phono cables meant only to be used between a tonearm and a phono stage input, usually have a female DIN plug at the tonearm end. A DIN plug mates with a male DIN to be found at the base of the tonearm, and it contains five connections, two for right channel hot and ground, two more for left channel hot and ground, and the fifth connection makes contact with the body of the tonearm. That fifth connection is what you see as an external ground wire, and it is meant to be connected to the external ground lug on a typical phono stage. Some tonearm/turntable combinations offer a pair of RCA outputs. In that case one can use conventional ICs. As you noted, those don’t give an external ground connection per se. In that case the only grounds are the Audio grounds. If your tonearm offers RCA outputs, then you might consider adding a secondary wire that you can attach anywhere on the tonearm or to a metal part of the turntable and then to the ground lug on the phono stage. Sometimes that is not needed. In fact, sometimes you’re better off without it. |
IMO, a dead strobe bulb on an SP10 mk2 is no great loss and would not affect speed accuracy or servo function , I don’t think but could be wrong. (A question for JP.) Also, by saying I thought the SME V is superior to the stock G tonearm I certainly did not mean to denigrate the latter. I am sure it’s very good too. |
IMO, a dead strobe bulb on an SP10 mk2 is no great loss and would not affect function. Also, by saying I thought the SME V is superior to the stock G tonearm I certainly did not mean to denigrate the latter. I am sure it’s very good too. |
in my opinion, the SOTA turntable would need the eclipse motor upgrade in order to get near to the SL1200 G in terms of speed stability. The electronic fly wheel business makes a nice story. On the other hand, the SMEV tonearm is almost certainly superior to the stock tonearm on the 1200 G. |
No point in our getting into a private back and forth here, but please do not take what I wrote as a criticism or an insult. Most of all, I would not insult your cartridge collection. I hope you would admit that you are a champion of MM and MI cartridges, by and large. That leads me to think you listen to them most often, compared to time spent with LOMC cartridges, regardless of how many you may own. I was just trying to understand why you feel so categorically that DIN connectors, headshell connectors, etc, etc, do not make any difference to SQ. In my own experience, those connectors in the phono signal chain do have little effect with high output cartridges, but not so with LOMCs. So I was projecting my own experience to yours.
I do own an FR64S with B60, by the way; I don't know why connectors would make more or less difference with an FR64fx vs an FR64S, but as you say, I don't own the latter. I would also say that the match of tonearm to cartridge seems more important than the number of connections. For example, my Koetsu Urushi sounds far better in my FR64S (using an Ortofon LH9000, 18gm headshell) than it did in my Triplanar, despite the fact that the Triplanar achieves direct connection from cartridge to phono inputs. So my generalization (that physical connectors DO make a difference with LOMCs) does not hold up 100% even in my experience. That's another reason why I was wondering about your level of certainty.
|
Chakster, I must say I am impressed by your level of certainty, at times. You wrote, "Additional headshell pins and even a DIN connector on a tonearm will not change the sound of a great tonearm/cartridge." How can you, or anyone, know this for all the different combinations that are possible? I think the odds are that the connections are less audible with high output cartridges vs very low output MC cartridges, where I would worry more. Since you are drawn to MM and MI cartridges with output voltages way higher than 1mV, that may account for your personal experience. I can think of many cases where replacing a physical contact interface in the signal chain with a hard-wired connection did make an audible improvement in SQ.
|
sbank, Crazily, I admit, I have multiple turntables up and running and just as many tonearms. I use two with fixed headshells, Reed and Triplanar, and three with removable headshells. When I want to experiment with different cartridges, I am drawn to the simplicity of removable headshells. This feature offers the additional not insignificant advantage of experimenting with different headshells, if for no other reason than to establish a good effective mass vs compliance ratio to suit a particular cartridge. For 10-20 years, I had swallowed the notion that fixed headshells were the purist and purest way to go, but my experiences over the last 10-12 years tell me I hear no problems related to flexing at the joint between headshell and tonearm. The other consideration is that adding a headshell:arm wand interface adds another physical connector between cartridge and phono stage. To me, that would be more of an issue with removable headshells than structural instability. Hence, I tend to mount my lowest output LOMC cartridges in either the Triplanar or the Reed. But I have broken even that rule of thumb with no discernible problems, I must admit, although I do continue to believe in direct-est connection to the phono stage; the fewer the interfaces, the better. One caveat: all headshells do not securely fit all tonearm wands. You have to check the quality of the fit in each case.
|
The audio establishment sold us the idea that headshells were inherently unstable mounted at the end of an arm wand, so now we’ve got a lot of expensive tonearms with fixed headshells. Around the same time they sold us the idea that bass and treble controls and loudness controls were mucking up the sound quality of our music, so they’ve been deleted. Rightly or wrongly these “innovations” that were near to universally adopted have certainly reduced the cost of manufacture, while prices have gone skyward. |
“Steadier pitch”, if and only if the basic speed constancy of the SOTA is as good as that of the 1200G, which isn’t likely. Also, does $10,000 pay for either one of the recommended tonearms plus a SOTA Nova w vacuum? |
