Tranfiguration Orpheus description

Neil,

I'll trade you my Shelter 901...

Tim asked:

On a different note, two questions for Doug: i) What gain options does your phonstage offer and what gain was in use for your U/O listening session?

The Alaap does not have selectable gain, other than choosing between the MM or MC inputs. The MM inputs have a very robust tube gain stage with three tubes per channel. The MC inputs add an FET gain stage before going into the MM stage. Each stage has an independent external power supply. I don't remember the gain figures, perhaps Nick will let us know.

I do know that the MM stage provides so much clean gain that one can play a .2mV Koetsu Onyx Platinum or a .24mV ZYX (.36mV if Nsgarch is correct) with low tube rush and fully ample dynamics. I've heard both of those cartridges through the MM inputs and they rocked the house with no distortion or dynamic headroom issues. Dan_Ed could probably confirm this with his XV-1S. I use the FET inputs to get optimal impedance loading, and it does reduce tube rush to inaudible levels.

On a related note, we're going to have Nick reduce our line stage gain to 9db. The present 15db is too much. I can't turn the gain control knob above 9:30-10:00 without breaking windows. It would be nice to have a less sensitive gain control and to run the line stage tubes nearer their mid-point.

ii) I think I understand the notion of electronics having a noise floor. In the case of a cartridge, where does noise get introduced? From stylus or external vibrations not getting resolved by a tonearm - a sort of mechanical feedback into the cantilever causing ghost frequencies not originating from the vinyl?

Exactly. That is precisely what we heard. If mechanical vibration is not damped or drained, it will necessarily vibrate the coils at frequencies and phases unrelated to the new signal coming from the groove. Vibrating coils generate signals...

We heard exactly this with the UNIverse a couple of weeks ago, during an abortive tweak-fest. I added a 4g weight atop the headshell, to get effective mass up to what Thom Mackris has found to be optimal. This certainly added weight and bass heft, but it also reflected energy back into the cartridge. Paul instantly heard phase shifted noise, made a face and left the room. It took me a couple of sides, but eventually I had to admit that the induced noise was a bigger penalty than any benefit. (Anyone want a nickel with two mounting holes drilled through it?)

At one of Cello's gatherings, Frank Schroeder was very surprised when a UNIverse/TriPlanar gave his Reference/Olympos a serious challenge. Since he knows from experience that the Reference is a quieter, better damped arm (and it is) he commented that the UNIverse must have exceptional internal damping. He expected to hear a muddied noise floor and/or resonance peaks at frequencies the TriPlanar doesn't control well. These are audible with Shelters and others on a TriPlanar, but not with a UNIverse, which prompted Frank's astute observation. It is an inherently quiet cartridge that doesn't rely on damping by the arm. It's had a similarly black background on every arm I've heard it on.

Sorry for the lengthy explanation and examples, but we made some strong statements about a $5K cartridge and people may reasonably question my constant championing of the ZYX. I felt you deserved as much verification as I could provide.

Doug

P.S. to Mark, I obviously can not and would not question your "O" vs. "V" findings. I have no doubt you and your group heard exactly what you reported. Don't go away! As you said, we're all here to learn together. Without this forum our system would be nowhere. We'd probably still be playing a CD once a month and wondering why music was so unsatisfying. (We'd also have much larger bank balances!)

Neil, 52 and counting, rapidly.

The hair's begun to grey but little of it has actually left me, yet. I just paid my stylist to barcode and GPS link each strand though, just to keep track. The digital revolution has come into its own - perfect hair forever!

Mark,

re: piccolos

A few weeks ago Dan_Ed and his wife rendezvoused at my place with Nick Doshi. The occasion was the delivery of Dan's new preamp.

(I invited you but you were busy in FL - and please accept my belated condolences. I only just noticed that your Dad passed away.)

Since it was near the 4th I had Sousa marches spinning (on a really great old London LP). Dan's wife enjoyed them and I played 'Stars and Stripes Forever' twice, because she loves the piccolo solo. It was July 4th/live band concert loud and absolutely clean. It can be done.

You're right that it's hard, and of course it takes more than just a great cartridge. The entire amplification chain and all the signal path wire must be very good. Not easy, but doable, and a thrill to hear.

Jtimothya,
Thanks for reminding me of that passage in Tchaikovsky 4. I'll spin it tonight and double check my piccolodeum!

SirSpeedy,
ND is indeed a special guy, and his components ain't half bad either. We are very lucky to have been introduced to him, and to be able to enjoy his work every day.

FWIW, hearing breath across the mouthpiece, that it's metal rather than wood and the roundness or tubiness of the instrument happens on any good LP around here, at least to our ears.

Whether your ears would concur we don't know of course, but I do know you have not heard even half of what a certain cartridge is capable of. The system you heard it in had multiple roadblocks - not just the tonearm ;-). If you'd heard what we hear you'd be much more impressed.

I'd love to hear this new Tranny BTW. The design concept is fascinating. I have no desire to make a change but a comparison would be fun and probably edifying. As has been said before, we are all incredibly fortunate to have such a wealth of great LP reproduction equipment to select from.

Please make sure one of the judges is not paid off.A'la Don King style

Darn! I've already had my hair done.

BTW, Cello (and Paul and I) had no problems with the UNIverse on his 2.2. The Airy 3 is the one that didn't like that arm. The UNIverse makes the 2.2 sound as good as, well, as good as it can! ;-)

Dan's right about my ears. :-(

My head is stuffed up with hay fever congestion and my HF hearing (usually clear to at least 15-16Khz) is shot to hell. Paul's goes well above mine however, so he's in charge of treble. I can still feel vibrations in the floor though, so I'll be charge of bass. Andrew can be in charge of beautiful mids and pouring more wine!

Andrew visited us this evening and we had an enjoyable and instructive time, aided considerably by the fine wine and even finer single malt he brought with him. My thanks for that!

SirSpeedy was correct to warn about VTF's below 1.90g. We heard the first faint signs of mistracking at 1.91 and moved up to 1.94, which proved safe. We tried higher VTF's too, and impedance settings of 200, 1500, and 47K ohms.

I would want Andrew to post his impressions first, but the answer to Rmaurin's questions is "no". More anon...

I'd like to share my thoughts and Paul's.

First, our thanks for Andrew's kind words about our system. We heard the things he described, with one exception, plus some things he did not mention. He is not an experienced classical music listener, so comparing strange music in a strange system represented a double challenge.

I'll describe what we heard on each LP, to give context and to help organize my thoughts.

'Past Times - Piano Rags'
Nonesuch H-71299 (sealed promo copy)
Surprisingly good rendition of solo piano and soundspace for a non-audiophile label

The O lacked the last edge of speed and did not differentiate the many sounds of a piano so clearly (action of mechanism, hammer hitting string, string vibration, echo off the case, vibration of the case). It slightly muddied all of these.

The O also lacked true HF extension, but this often improves with break-in and it would be unfair to consider this a flaw at the 80 hour point. The shrillness Andrew described at 47K ohms, which was reduced at 1500 and gone at 200, all occured at ~14KHz and below. Frequencies above that were attenuated, though they will probably open up with time. Nsgarch is very probably correct that continually lower input impedances will prove best as the cartridge runs in. I have experienced this with several new cartridges.

'Trio' - Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, Emmy Lou Harris
Warner Bros. Records W1-25491 (sealed copy)
The difficult thing about this record is differentiating between the very close vocal harmonies. In addition, this copy was in cellophane too long and developed a nasty warp.

The Orpheus was virtually unable to resolve Dolly and Linda when they sung tight harmonies. Emmy Lou is easy to resolve due to her unique vocal timbre, but the other two sounded almost like one rather full-bodied singer.

The Orpheus was unable to play track 1, at all. It literally jumped out of the groove. We double checked everything but setup was normal and nothing was brushing the record. The suspension simply couldn't handle that warp (the UNIverse tracks it cleanly and plays without distortion). We had to play middle tracks to hear the Orpheus on this record.

Certain accompanying instruments had a slightly smoothed over quality, but this was easier to hear on other records so I'll describe it there.

'Sonic Fireworks, Vol. 1'
Crystal Clear Records CCS-7010
Many of you are familiar with this direct-to-disk showoff disc. Enormously powerful bass and kettle drums, intense brass and a big cathedral pipe organ on some tracks will challenge the dynamic strength and subtlety of any component in the system.

The O's macrodynamics were very good, but its bass response was flawed. (This is where we and Andrew heard differently.) The O's bass was neither deeper nor stronger in amplitude than the U's. It was slightly boomy, which made it seem relatively more prominent compared to other frequencies. This proved problematical for two reasons.

First, it lacked texture. Compared to the U's deep and growly bass, the O's bass was bold but smeared.

Second, it interfered with the rest of the spectrum. I'll give two specific examples:

a) This record contains many large cymbal hits with long decays. When a big bass or kettle drum hit in the middle of a cymbal decay, the decay was temporarily overwhelmed and became inaudible, then reappeared after the drum energy died down a bit. Those familiar with the U know that it never does this. All frequencies are reproduced cleanly and independently, no matter how crazy, complex or dynamic the rest of the music gets. The O could not match this level of transparency.

b) This record contains both a huge bass drum and a set of very large kettle drums. The O had a hard time distinguishing which was which. The U not only does that, it resolves the size and shape of each.

'Fragile', Yes
Atlantic Records SD 19132 (very minty copy)
Andrew's a rock listener and this represents the best (and almost the only) LP from my rock "collection". ;-)

He asked for the beginning of the last cut on side 2, 'Heart of the Sunrise', and I'll defer to him for why that cut was chosen. Paul and I both heard the same thing however, a dynamically flatter or restrained presentation. The O did not attain the dynamic range between loudest and softest that we're used to.

I think that about covers what we heard. The Orpheus is, as Andrew said, a neutral, uncolored and resolving cartridge. Its bass is solid but flawed and it does not control energies well enough to attain the very low noise floor and wide dynamic range that ZYX listeners are used to. This is what prompted Paul to speculate that a Schroeder might be a good match, since Frank's arms tame excess energies better than any we know.

I'll be happy to answer any questions, but speculation about whether VTF, VTA, azimuth, impedance or other setup parameters might have improved things will not be answered, since that is pointless speculation. We did our honest best in the time we had, with the owner standing right there and confirming every adjustment. No audiophile I've met has ears to match Paul's for VTA and VTF. Andrew and I both confirmed the azimuth setting by ear and we all heard the impedance changes easily. My belief is that we got at least 95% of what this particular Orpheus is capable of given its fairly low hours.

Andrew,

Thank you for being an upstanding guy. I never doubted what we all heard, though I'm beginning to wonder why we bothered sharing it. You get my vote for honest audiophile of the year.

Like you, I hope the O will open up a lot more. IMO this is likely precisely because it couldn't yet track that warp on 'Trio'. A 9g/13cu cartridge on a TriPlanar should track that, so odds are it will improve a lot. Our Shelter 901 and Airy 3 each needed 200+ hours, so keep spinning.

A repeat visit (in either direction) after a few more months would be good fun.

A wee nip o' the Lagavulin to you,
Doug

Mark,

We're still striving but we are indeed blessed, not only with some good mainstream components (which anyone might choose) but mostly by a friend who makes rare and very special preamps and amps for remarkably affordable prices. We have not heard anything better them, at any price, except for Dan_Ed's four-chassis version of the same preamp. (Lucky guy!) Meeting Nick was a huge bit of good luck.

Back to the Orpheus. It is a good cartridge, it will get better with time and those with certain listening preferences could prefer it to an Airy 3 or even a UNIverse. The trick is conciously understanding our sonic preferences before choosing a component.

The Orpheus does nothing obviously wrong, it never steps out of line and it is always satisfying and musical, which is more than I'd say about most other cartridges. (You know how forgiving I am!) The shortcomings we heard were sins of omission, the kind of things you never notice until you hear something better. Rushton, Zaikesman and others told me the same thing about my old c-j PV11 preamp, but I never quite believed them until Nick visited us with an Alaap in tow. Then we understood.

Our guess is that "typical" classical/jazz/acoustic listeners would prefer the ghostly quiet noise floor of a ZYX. This unflappable, jet black background lets colors, textures and sudden dynamic contrasts leap out with an "eery" reality, as Andrew noted. OTOH, the Tranny's somewhat higher noise floor gives it an insistent sort of energy that some rock/amplified music listeners would prefer. Those aren't my preferences so it's harder for me to explain them, but I became an old fart when I discovered classical at age 16 and I'm not getting any younger!

Best,
Doug

That < is indeed my dunce cap, worn whenever I attempt a particularly lame jest. Anything I say while wearing it may (and probably should) be used against me.

Neil, that one was just too juicy to pass up - sorry! I'm sure you took it in the utterly backassward way it was intended. :-) Like you, I wouldn't accept SP's characterization of a used Kleenex without seeking an independent second opinion.

Hi Raul,

Thanks for your insights. We understand this "test" was fairly useless, especially given the low hours on Andrew's cartridge. Very true.

Andrew's speakers go lower than mine, but when I described bass differences I described what we DID hear, not what we didn't. One cartridge produced strong, tuneful and articulate bass down to the lower limit of the system. The other had solid but somewhat "one-note" bass, down to that same limit. Again, this may easily improve with break in or on another tonearm, but the differences we heard were between the two cartridges.

We performed our "VTA madness for each LP" with the Orpheus just as carefully as with our own cartridge. Andrew heard the differences and agreed that Paul had found the right spot.

My phono stage has no known problems at 47K. I've listened to six or eight cartridges through those inputs and the performance has always been exemplary, subject only to the fact that 47K is not optimal for most LOMC's, as you know. The Orpheus's upper mids and lower highs were peaky, just what you'd expect from a low hours, 2.5 ohm cartridge at 47K. This is not a flaw in the Orpheus or the phono stage, it's normal behavior. Nsgarch, a Tranny user, recommends much lower impedances and I agree with him. Other than finding the Orpheus's ideal impedance once it's fully broken in, this is a non-issue. Why Andrew's phono stage doesn't produce a rising top end at 47K I do not know, since I'm quite unfamiliar with it.

We have not dissed the Orpheus. If we hadn't had a UNIverse to compare, its thicker bass and slightly blended inner harmonics could have gone unnoticed. The Orpheus is a good cartridge that does nothing obviously wrong, as I said. It simply wasn't (at this stage in its life) able to match the clarity, low noise floor, microdynamics and "eery" realism of the ZYX. That may change next week or next month or never, so this comparison was just a snapshot in time - "useless" in the long run.

We also said nothing about the Orpheus vs. the V, the W or any other cartridge. I have no reason to doubt SirSpeedy's enthusiastic report of the new model's superiority over its predecessors, or your characterization of them based on your own experience. But you have not compared them with a UNIverse either...

rzed,
What argument? It's more like a tempest in a teacup.

The three people who were actually here all heard the same thing. The people disagreeing were hundreds of miles away and they're both Tranny owners. Partisanship from a distance seems too obvious to require comment or rebuttal.

If the phonostage which is currently owned by Doug is that good to discern the level of performance of these top cartridges to that slight differentiation, than I urge it to be exlusively produced and made available to that small little crazy group of people like us.

It is available, by custom order, for anyone crazy enough to want a reference level, full-function preamp for 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of commercial units that it routinely outplays. (Raul also uses a very special custom preamp, for similar reasons.) Dan_Ed sold his Aesthetix gear one week after hearing our Alaap and ordered one for himself, which he's now enjoying mightily. The two requirements of an owner are that he love music and be someone we'd enjoy having around to dinner. Most of the people on this thread would qualify.

Doug

Neil,

Glad you're getting those good results.

Remember that our findings were strictly comparative, an attempt to describe differences, not a statement about absolute performance capabilities. 99% of the cartridges in the world would do worse than an Orpheus or a UNIverse.

Remember also that Andrew's Orpheus was relatively new and we had little time for fine tuning the setup.

Drop in next time you're passing through CT!

Nsgarch wrote:

Oh really? I wonder what Nakatsuka-san would think of a customer who thought him such a sloppy craftsman as to make a cartridge that had to be raked BACKWARD to achieve proper SRA? (to say nothing of the hurt feelings of the tonearm designer!)

I guess a proper comparison remains in the future . . . .

Heh, more blind and incorrect assumptions, Neil. I haven't checked other TriPlanars, but on this one a slightly tail down arm results in a parallel cartridge and vertical SRA. That has been true with Denons, Shelters, Koetsus, ZYX's and now Trannys. We did not and do not play with negative VTA or SRA.

I guess a post from you based on first hand experience remains in the future...

Neil,

I was checking SRA before fine tuning by ear for years before you ever posted about it. Spare us your smarmy "advice".

BTW, Jon Risch published the SRA methodology that some here give you credit for back in 1999, long before you did. While I have mentioned Jon's article repeatedly you have never acknowledged his pioneering work, though you apparently don't mind taking credit for it.

I wonder if SirSpeedy includes plagiarism in his definition of dishonesty? He's our expert on that subject.

Dan,

As I just posted, we did not run the Orpheus (or UNIverse) VTA tail down in our setup. The only *cartridges* we've ever run tail down were Shelters, which most people agree prefer that attitude. We're chasing a false lead on this one.

Doug

Neil,

Thanks for the offer. I have a mirror, a good lamp, 10x and 20x loupes, a 100x microscope and cards with reference lines at 0, 1 and 2 degrees. What other tools does one need to see and adjust SRA. (And yes, I understand that straight vertical is not optimal. Sorry for the shorthand.)

Are you EVER going to read or acknowledge that article I mentioned? You are not the only one who understands this, nor were you the first (and I certainly wasn't either). We should all give credit where credit is due.

You didn't by any chance read it in the smallest room of your house and put it behind you, I hope? :-)

I think it unlikely that Nick would post on a thread as pointlessly contentious as this one. Unlike many of us, he actually has a life! ;-)

Neither Andrew nor I have anything to apologize for, and it's a waste of time responding to people who don't read what we wrote before posting criticisms. For example, I've stated at least three times that we played the O with slightly positive SRA, but I'm still being told that we should have done what we did, or how to do what we did. Has everyone gone blind?

Nsgarch launched this thread to discuss the Orpheus. I have nothing more to add unless I hear one again, and I'm unlikely to share it here if I do.

Doug

Andrew,

It sounds like the Orpheus is breaking in nicely. The fact that it now sounds better at a more normal 100 ohms than at 47K is consistent with that. I've had new MC's that sounded okay at higher impedances OOTB, but needed progressively lower impedances as I put hours on them until they finally reached happiness at the expected setting.

I wish we'd had more hours to play with arm height during your visit. Your results make sense. Our cartridge also sounds muddy and less micro-dynamic when SRA is too low. Glad to hear working at this is paying off so well. I'd love to hear it again some time, optimized in your system for instance!

All the best,
Doug

Andrew,

Cello and I each own a 25% share in a Wally Analog Shop. It works, and using it taught me two things (which Dan has already mentioned):

1. extremely small adjustments matter and,

2. I can set azimuth about as well by ear as by measuring (and with far less fuss).

4yanx also owned a share of our Wally at one time. He sold it after making the same discovery. Wanna buy my share? ;-)

As Tim said, cartridges are rarely if ever so flawless that stylus, cantilever, coils, suspension and magnets all align perfectly. It just doesn't happen in real manufacturing.

I set the stylus close to vertical to prevent vinyl damage or uneven wear. I don't find magnification helpful for this either. After that, fine adjustments to minimize crosstalk yield the best sound.

A good mono record works, but so does a good stereo one if there are well recorded instruments or vocalists in the center. Getting images tightly focused with maximum air is the goal.

Doug

In your experience, what range of azimuth changes resulted in optimization. 1/8 turn? 1/4 turn? Or less?

Much less. 1/12 or 1/24 of a turn. It is important to take up the backlash in the threads of the adusting screw BEFORE loosening the two set screws. Otherwise you'll have no idea where you started or how far you've actually rotated the armwand.

Also, did your setting through listening equal the setting you obtained using the Wally instrument?

Yes, pretty much. With the UNIverse I was able to get crosstalk below 0.5db. Subsequent settings by ear seemed to duplicate that quite well. As other components in the path get better, it becomes easier to hear and adjust accurately. Nick's components and the Valkyra wire really made it clear.

Finally, did you have to connect your speaker cables to the Wally device or can you just insert tonearm out puts or preamp outputs?

Speaker wire connections work much better. Low level signals like preamp or, especially, tonearm output would require much more sensitive measuring equipment. The Wally just uses a standard digital multimeter. No way is that sensitive enough to measure crosstalk accurately with low level signals. Channel imbalances in the amplification chain don't matter, so there's no reason not to use the more easily measured output from your amp(s).

Doug

P.S. I don't bother levelling the headshell. That would be useful if the cartridge were dead nuts on from top surface to stylus, but that's unlikely. I just start by making the stylus/cantilever look vertical (under normal VTF on a record). This seems like a logical and simple place to start, at least to me. I noticed Frank Schroeder doing it the same way. Diff'rent strokes?

BTW, how come SP never tested a ZYX cart?

Presumably because Mehran listened to your good advice! ;-)

ZYX doesn't advertise, so sending SP a review sample might be asking for death-by-faint-praise. Not that I'm implying anything...

BTW, can't we have one thread about a Tranny without you dragging ZYX into it again? You're fixated! <8~)

Andrew,

Glad to hear the ole' trial and error is working for you too! Larry found the Wally buried beneath some old record sleeves and used pads from his cleaning brushes, but now I guess you don't need it. :-)

I'll have to try a mono LP for azimuth adjustment again. Whenever I've felt like fiddling with it I've just used whatever was on the table at the time, which is likely to be stereo (around here anyway). If nothing else I can verify what I've done, and if it's easier I'm all for it!

Nsgarch,
I don't have a mono/stereo switch either, but if I did setting it to mono would make azimuth adjustment impossible. Summing the info from both channels would negate any L/R adjustments made to the stylus. Azimuth is about reducing crosstalk, whereas a mono switch forces 100% crosstalk.

Andrew,

Your increase in VTF (1.92 to 1.97) had sonic effects that would be similar on our cartridge, or maybe any cartridge. A slight increase in overall heft, sturdier bass, less edginess in highs. Those are fairly normal effects when you move from near the mistracking point to very slightly higher.

A spot some few hundredths of a gram above the mistracking point is the sweet spot for every LOMC we've used. On a UNIverse the spot is about .02-.04g above the mistracking point. Apparently on an Orpheus it's about .05g above the mistracking point. Different suspensions, different results, but not by very much.

We're obviously both splitting hairs to maximize the performance of extraordinarily sensitive and responsive cartridges. As Raul observed during his visit here, we play right on the edge. Our bass was a touch light at one point so I replaced a thick O-ring with a thin one, increasing VTF by about .02g. He was fairly amazed at the audible improvement from such a tiny adjustment. This degree of nuttiness is the only way to get the most from these cartridges, at least in our experience.

BTW, don't think that just because it sounds perfect at 1.97g today that it will do so forever. That kind of stability will probably never happen. Weather will change it. Amount of use or lack thereof will change it. We often find ourselves reducing VTF by .02-.03g after the cartridge warms up from playing several sides. The sweet spot is always a moving target.

You're right that VTF must be absolutely spot-on before you can truly optimize VTA/SRA. Doing that by ear requires listening for:

a) the integration or timing of fundamentals vs. harmonics (what Frank Schroeder and I hear) or,

b) the quickest rise/fall times and greatest amplitudes of individual notes, especially bass notes (what Paul hears).

Best,
Doug

Nsgarch,

Your suggestion to use small VTF adjustments as a proxy for fine-tuning VTA/SRA would indeed have the effect you described. Unfortunately, VTF fine-tuning does more than center the coils in the magnetic field. A fairly large increase like .2g would cause other effects that might fairly swamp the VTA/SRA change.

As Andrew described and I affirmed, a change of .05g or even .02g can have a significant impact on sonics. These tiny changes barely effect the coils/magnets relationship, yet if we're near the cartridge's VTF sweet spot they have significant sonic effects. Why?

I believe the reason has to do with a kind of mechanical damping. Increases in VTF increase pressure between the suspension and cantilever, by definition. Once we have sufficient downforce to assure clean tracking, additional pressures very quickly become detrimental. HF response is dulled, micro-dynamic shadings are lost, the music goes dull, drab, lifeless - in a word, overdamped.

Our anti-skating experiments (described on other threads) support this understanding. Anti-skating, like VTF, increases pressure between suspension and cantilever. Using more than necessary to maintain clean tracking sounds exactly like using too much VTF. HF response is dulled, micro-dynamic shadings are lost, the music goes dull, drab and lifeless - in a word, overdamped.

For the sufficiently obsessed (Andrew and I know who we are!) increasing VTF as a proxy for adjusting VTA/SRA would produce unacceptable side effects. Of course Raul did observe that Paul and I play our rig right on the edge. He was certainly right about that. ;-)

Doug

Thank you, SirSpeedy.

Best wishes for the holidays and the new year,
Doug

Bon giorno!

I wonder if the optimum range one uses above the mistracking point also has to do with the compliance of the cartridge. The Orpheus has a lower compliance than most and it would seem correct to be on the higher end of the range.

That theory makes excellent sense, to me anyway.

The weight of the cartridge probably also enters into it. Dan_Ed doesn't need to substitute O-rings for the antiskate weight on his TriPlanar, because his hulking behomoth of an XV-1S squashes the scales at 12g or so. His sweet spot might also be farther above the mistracking point. (Dan?)

Lighter/more compliant cartridges probably have a smallish sweet spot centered close to the mistracking point. Heavier/less compliant cartridges probably have a larger sweet spot centered farther above the mistracking point.

Great speculation. We probably just learned something.

Ciao,
Doug

Dan_Ed wrote:

I don't know any other way to say it, but AS is a necessary evil that must be kept to a minimum. What I have found is that by going into the same range with vtf that Andrew posted has greatly reduced the propensity for my setup to mis-track. Doug and I have discussed this effect in the past but I have to admit to being somewhat skeptical. Well, I'm a true believer now! I've replaced the 3.9 gram AS weight with what amounts to just under 1 gram with no mis-tracking on any of the LP's I own that used to cause me to bump up the AS. The increase in dynamics and resolution has my jaw on the floor!

BIG SMILEY FACE!

Your post that SirSpeedy has already admired is worthy of a second admiration.
- listen to hear what the cartridge wants
- balance the nimbleness of being on the edge of mistracking with the authority of more downforce
- use just enough AS to prevent mistracking

Brilliantly and simply expressed. We have a Zen master. :-)

Sometimes the vocabulary we use strikes me as chunkier than the product of the fine grained adjustments it attempts to describe.

Very true. Trying to express these experiences in words is quite challenging.

From the above, I interpret 'a)' (integration of fundamental and harmonics) as the absence or lessening of what I call tonal 'smearing'. To me this is as much a temporal issue as it is anything, but I'd love for anyone to elaborate further. Several hundred messages ago in this thread we mentioned the piccolo solo in the third movement of Tchaikovski's 4th - many notes in a short span of time. When the leading edges bump into the trailing edges, such that notes are less tonally individuated, I call this 'smearing'. A smeared single note is slightly 'de-focused' tonally, it is less 'compact' as if its harmonics slather outside proper temporal boundaries. Correlating back to reality, better 'tonal focus' means homing in on the setup sweet spot. Is this at all close to what you're talking about??

EXACTLY RIGHT! Paul actually uses the word "smearing". I use the phrase "temporal integration". We're talking about the same thing and so are you. The attack of resin on string, the vibration of the string, the reverb in the body: all must occur with timing that's realistic relative to each other. Otherwise it doesn't sound like a violin.

Wrt to 'b)', I think I grasp listening for amplitude, but help me out with listening for 'quickest rise/fall time'. More words (heh) or an example? Without knowing better, I'd think this was ultimately the same thing as 'a)' put differently, but that could just mean I'm confused.

Well, it is the same thing in different words, and since you hear (a) as I do perhaps that's what you should listen for. I mentioned (b) largely to help those who hear more like Paul than me.

This is Paul's thing more than mine, but one example is that, while visiting Cello, he was able to adjust arm height by the feel of the air coming from the woofers, without LISTENING at all. When each pulse had maximum intensity and fastest slope, on both ends, he knew VTA/SRA was right.

I "think" the easiest way to explain this is SRA theory. The playback stylus can only trace a waveform accurately if its SRA matches that of the cutting stylus. If SRA is way off, the stylus would "slide" onto and off of a modulation more gradually than it should. This would lengthen and smooth both leading and trailing edge transients, artificially raise the noise floor and thus reduce peak amplitudes relative to that floor. I'm not claiming that's what actually happens, SRA theory is controversial, but that's what it sounds like.

So, is this all too neurotic? Only if we let it be. It's really become just second nature. I don't fret about whether VTA/SRA is right, I adjust only if and when I notice that it's not. Of course, becoming more sensitized does mean you notice more often. ;-)

I'll jump up from the dinner table to adjust arm height on a record we haven't played before, just because my ears have learned which way to go and about how far. It's mostly a matter of practice, but the practicing isn't unpleasant and it doesn't stop my toes from tapping. We only do it because it's easier to enjoy the music with good timing than be annoyed by inaccurate timing and smearing.

And our infamous yellow stickies are a HUGE help. Trying to find the right spot from scratch on every play of every LP WOULD be insane. Raul or Dan will tell you I have arm height dialed in on familiar LP's before the platter gets up to speed. Record keeping makes the whole thing a virtual no-brainer on a daily basis.