Tranfiguration Orpheus description

Thanks Aoliviero. It sure would be hard to part with my Tranny W. Hmmm, I wonder what I could get for it ;--)

Just a note about output with Transfiguration products: they use the JVC test record. Most other manufacturers use the CBS test record which gives values 1.6x the "JVC" values. In addition, most phono preamp gain specs are tied to outputs based on the CBS values.

So to make a fair comparison with (most) other cartridges, and also to determine what kind of gain will be required from the phono preamp, it's necessary to convert the JVC derived values to the CBS value.

For instance the Orpheus is rated a 0.48mV output, but if it had been spec'd using the CBS record, the output would actually be 0.77mV -- fairly healthy by most MC standards.

.

Speedy, I'm available to attend all wine/listening events -- let me know.

As for the Trannies deals, yes Tommy is the guy, although I just heard from someone who spoke w/ him recently that the O is $2750, not $2650 (which is what my latest price list says.) I bought my Tranny from him (as did two friends) and he is a totally stand-up guy.

As for the cartridge itself -- not having seen design drawings ;--) but based on the specs, particularly the output and the coil resistance values, it looks to me like the Orpheus has (essentially) the same ouput as a W but the (fewer) coil windings (therefore better transients?) of the V.

To accomplish this feat, they'd have had to come up with a stronger ring magnet and then tighten up the tolerances between magnet and coils.

Sure, if you can sell your V for $2k and trade up for another $750 I think that would be the way to go. I'm not ready to do that yet (waiting to see what all the big spenders have to say ;--) however, except for the no-yoke Decca, and the half-yoke Colibri, I think Transfiguration has made the biggest leap forward in cartridge design in the last two decades. All the other current "hot ticket" cartridges are, to me, just variations on an old theme, and therefore simply don't interest me, since I feel that envelope has been pushed as far as possible and its limits reached. Therefore, I think it's exciting (nor does it surprise or upset me) that Transfiguration has found a way to push their unique design even further, though they introduced the V and W roughly two years ago.

I always went w/ Ford over GM because, though I felt GM was built with better fit and finish, Ford had more design and engineering innovation. Transfiguration does both.
.

Now about those piccolos: I just listened to the LennyB/NYP Tai-Chi 4th/3rd piccolito passage(s) with my W -- sounded excellent, and I found it enabled me to dial-in the AS even closer.

I don't know what recording led to the comments above, but Lenny must've had a hell of a time finding piccolo players in NY that year, there couldn't have been more than six pics on my recording, but it was enough to hear what y'all are talking about.

Stats:

SME V arm
Goldmund Studietto TT w/ sorbothane PandaPaws (no springs)

VTF = 1.95 gm
AS = 1 (gm? on the SME dial)
Silicone damping = minimum, 1 or 2 threads on the dipstick

Glad to see some glowing testimonicles finally surfacing for the Trannies -- it's about time ;--)

.

Speedy, you can take an old established design and push it to the absolute limit of possible performance, using painstaking craftsmanship and the very best materials in fabricating that design, and what you wind up with (in the world of cartridges) are the very most expensive versions of Koetsu, Allaerts, ZYX, van den Hul, Dynavector, Magic Diamond, etc. etc. And you can vary some of the materials and/or dimensions to produce different sonic qualities that you like in combination with different tonearms and kinds of music, leading of course to multiple cartridge/tonearm ownership ;--)

In all the above cases, this kind of (necessarily expensive) refinement has led to highly articulate but rather low output devices. And only the advent of (necessarily expensive) new technology, that provides "LOADS of really clean gain" (as you put it) has saved these feeble little gems from the ravages of the step up transformer!

Now, suppose you hit on a new mechanical design that produced a cartridge with the excellent tracking and transient accuracy of one with a light weight coil, but provided the healthier output of a heavier coil with more windings? The result is the Transfiguration W. I decided there'd be no real need to buy a V because it wouldn't track any better than a W. The coil weight in both cartridges is so light it's negligable compared to the weight of the coil former itself, and which is also a newer lighter material, super mu metal, I believe it's called.

So now you have a cartridge with great articulation, transients and trackability, along with enough output to produce a useful signal with less gain and less noise. That's why one of the first remarks folks make about the Trannies is how QUIET they are! Well Duh!!

There is so much room now to improve and refine this smart new Transfiguration design. By comparison, the traditional designs have basically hit a performance ceiling IMO, unless they can obtain more powerful magnets at a competitive cost. Otherwise you're going to continue to see the folks at Dynavetor twisting themselves into pretzels trying to get a little bit more out of the conventional magnetic yoke design -- or maybe Dr. vdHul will next come up with a vertical assembly so he can shorten the cantilever some more ;--) or maybe someone will figure out a way to make coils out of conductive films that don't weigh anything at all!

In the meantime we have now advanced to the Orpheus, further combining and improving on the innovative mechanical design of the Temper V and W, and making it obvious (to me anyway) why there's only one model of the Orpheus and not two!
.

Speedy -- let me clarify/restate my position. I'm NOT saying that the Tranny V, W, or the Orpheus raise the bar on the other fine "traditional" cartridges I mentioned. They can all hold their own quite nicely for now, given high quality preamplification.

What I AM saying is that the traditional (yoke) MC cartridge design, which (except for the Decca) has been with us since the beginning, has been refined/modified as far as it can for getting the absolute maximum performance from it (or so it seems to me, however informed debate is always welcome ;--) Maybe some designer out there yet plans to try titanium coils or rare earth supermagnets.

So my assertion is simply that the V and W and Orpheus are already in the same league as the other hot ticket cartridges, but unlike the others, the Tranny design still have much unexplored room for improvement; and the fact that the Orpheus was introduced so quickly on the heels of the V and W is to me, living proof of that hypothesis.

As a matter of fact, I'm a reluctant to invest in an Orpheus right now, and here's why:

1.) I really like my W a LOT!
2.) Unless you guys say the Orpheus is VASTLY superior to the V or W (thus automatically making it better than every other cartridge on the market!) I expect that:
3.) There will soon be an Orpheus MkII (or a Pegasus, or a Thaedra or whatever) and/or:
4.) Others manufacturers will begin making their own version of the Transfiguration design, which IMO is just begging to be copied.

My remark about "much unexplored room for improvement" is meant to suggest that ultimately, and if the will exists, I believe we may see a MC cartridge that has MM output, but using an ultra-lightweight coil found today only in .24 mV output MC cartridges. Wouldn't that be cool!
.

Speedy, I believe you are referring to the Kinergetics SW-800 towers in the pic, however it's an old pic. Those now live in Scotland, and have been replaced with a Martin Logan Depth which I like way better.

Mark, you can search cartridgedb.com til your eyeballs fall out but you won't find another MC cart with the (low) coil resistance (i.e low coil weight)-to-output ratio of the Orpheus. BTW, the outputs for Tranny (and ZYX) products need to be multiplied by a factor of 1.6 for comparison with (most other) cartridges that use the CBS test record. So a V is really .61 mV, and a O is really .77 mV.

These kind of specs are yet unheard of in the world of MC cartridges. It's gonna be a killer! Over three times the output of ANY cartridge with such a lightweight coil. C'mon!

Oh sure, the 2 ohm Miyabi Ivory = .2 mV output. Fabulous!
The 4 ohm ZYX UNI = .38 mV (corrected by 1.6) Terrific!
The 8 ohm ZYX UNI = .77 mV (corrected by 1.6) Amazing!

B. F. DEAL!!

I mean let's look at this. The UNI has the same output as the O, but the O's coil is 1/3 the weight (and probably 1/3 the windings) of the UNI. So which one do you think will sound more like an EXTREMELY QUIET .77 mV version of a .2 mV Colibri??
.

Mark, your response indicates a slightly different understanding from mine.

Once again, I have no reason to diss those other great cartridges;--) However, in terms of further design innovation or performance improvement, I see nowhere for them to go.

The following comment (of yours) is why I get the feeling that you're just not pickin' up what I'm puttin' down, as they say:

"Do you know for sure,if the "O" Has a much more refined coil "Schtick" as opposed to the Temper-V?
It is also no stretch to see how the Mfgr decided to increase the output a "smidgen",change the body(same material),and go from the Temper's 3.0 ohm resistence to the new,and not so much better 2.5 ohms."

OK, first of all, I don't think the mfgr simply DECIDED (i.e. as part of some marketing plan) to bring out the Orpheus. Nor do I think they just DECIDED to increase the output a "smidgen" or reduce the coil weight by 20% while increasing output 25% over the previous model. You can't just DECIDE such things, wave your magic tonearm, and have them come to pass!

What they did, they were able to do because of what they learned from making the V and the W; Obviously, they have to respect electromagnetic laws just like any other cart. mfgr. So if you want more output with fewer coil windings, there's only one way: get a stronger magnet (with a more focused flux field, if possible) In the Orpheus, the ring magnet's size/strength has obviously been increased enough to achieve respectably modest output using a coil which, in other (conventional) cartridges, would produce just a low output (around .2 - .3 mV)

The Orpheus combines the (I assume better) tracking and transients of the V, with the healthier output of the W -- and makes it unnecessary to offer two versions of the Orpheus. And I don't believe this was all the result of some marketing "decision" -- where they already had the technology in place. No no. I think once the W and V were in production, they realized how close their specs actually are, and started looking to see if there was a way to make the W's coil lighter, and the V's output higher, and then combine it all in a single cartridge. Answer? Bigger magnet.

Now, to address an obvious question: So why doesn't using a bigger magnet work to improve the conventional yoke designs?

Answer: Because no matter how much stronger the magnet, the flux field itself (in the gap between the poles where the coil sits) is only useful just where the coil is immersed in it, the rest is wasted. That's why the folks at Dynavector have gone to extraordinary lengths using multiple Alnicos, "flux shaping" coils on the front poles, and a "shaped aperature" on the XV-1s front pole, all in an attempt to focus the flux field on the coils. But it's still a low output cartridge ;--)

In the Transfiguration ring magnet design, they've basically set the coil down into cylinder-shaped magnet with a hole just big enough to receive the coil without it touching the sides of the cylinder. With the suspension rubber on the bottom of the can and the cantilever sticking out the open end, the coil is literally immersed in a magnetic flux that's totaly concentrated on the coil. This arrangement also solves eddy current problems, etc. and I'll bet the magnetic "can" helps to shield the coil from RFI/EMI too ;--)

I guess what I'm trying to express is that the introduction of the Orpheus wasn't just some "planned obsolesence" marketing strategy -- any more than when ZYX brought out the UNIverse so soon after the Airy 3. They just discovered a way to do something better and said, "Why not?" Don't we wish more manufacturers felt that way?
.

Jcarr -- with all due respect, I think you have it all backwards ;--( Here's some technical background for your edification. BTW, the new core material only helps improve the signal to noise ratio, it doesn't increase the output:

The moving coil cartridge has become to be accepted internationally as the ultimate transducer of these and other fine analog recordings. However, despite increasingly sophisticated cartridges being developed there remains a number of aspects that place a ceiling on the quality of the reproduction: the prime cause being the yokes and pole-pieces of the magnet, which focus the field around the coil. The yoke system is unable to focus the full power of the magnet into the coil affecting both the strength and the accuracy of the signal. The resulting distortion inherent in most moving coil designs shows as a high frequency rise, ringing and a high level of both distortion and tracking distortion. There is also a masking of the frequency response, especially in the high range. The inter-relationship of magnetic field and coils is simply too "loose". The magnet and coils are too far apart to be able to capture the very subtlest details. On the other hand, very dynamic passages tend to cause coil saturation, especially if the coils are wound on formers. Increasingly powerful magnets, or special coils, bodies and suspensions, are in themselves no solution.

"Accuracy" defines precisely the ability of a cartridge to recreate the original recorded sound. Greater accuracy provides more of the music - the direct sound, and the myriad of recording environment subtleties that are the intimate detail. Ultimately, a more musical sound. Indeed, it seemed the ultimate moving coil design was already with us. Only to be continuously re-refined.

Design Concept

Now, in these final days of the glories of analog, there is a whole new frontier to the music of recorded music. The great complexity and crudeness of magnetic fields, yokes and coils is replaced by a new concept. The vast and costly magnets, magnetic-field-dispersing yokes and coils suffering variable magnetic influences of all other moving coil designs are replaced by a single assembly.

No yokes
Coils inside the magnet
No magnetic irregularities
Coils at the crux of magnetic focus
Intimate coil/magnet coupling
Low internal impedance
High output
Elegantly simple body design

Technical Features:
• Unique ultra grade SS-µ-metal core for coil assembly. Newly developed ultra grade SS-µ-metal square core increases sensitivity by 35dB, improving the signal to noise ratio and eliminating a usual source of distortion.
• Special 7N copper coils. A newly developed 7N copper wire used in the coils eliminates a common source of distortion and increases transparency.
• Push-pull damping. A special quality compound has been meticulously designed and fabricated to provide total stylus/coil alignment and control. Its non-sensitivity to temperature change keeps the damping co-efficient stable and improves trackability.
• Anti-resonance cartridge body shape. A resonance controlled 'simple' design for lower tonal colouration and a new-generation image.
• Boron cantilever. Newly developed rod for a more natural sound.
• Low mass tip. Ogura PA (3 x 30µm) tip. Its function is to reproduce the character of the original recorded sound - not add or subtract its own deficiencies.
• Ultra tight magnet-coil coupling. The coils are not just close but literally right inside, with coil-magnet proximity of only a few thousandths of an inch. With the precision magnetic field focusing possible only with a ring magnet and superbly accurately wound coils, the ultra tight magnet-coil coupling enables far greater electromagnetic efficiency.
• Dynamic mass minimized and coil saturation eliminated. Much faster, more accurate stylus response to groove formation. Rising dynamics or sharp transients never mask detail.
• Twin coils on cantilever fulcrum. Ultra low dynamic mass and mechanical impedance for instant, accurate reaction to every groove detail, including the ability to handle massive transients without overshoot or break-up.

excerpted from Elusive Disc:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=TRANORP

Andrew, get that damn load down to 100 ohms. or even 60 ohms for heaven's sake. It will never sound right at 47K. And just set the headshell/top of cart parallel to platter. Run w/ a little xtra VTF till after 100 hours ( 2 - 2.25 gms)

I'm not saying that with those settings it'll sound great out of the box, but they'll alow you to hear and enjoy the changes the cart goes thru as it breaks in. You will not hear those changes at 47Kohms load, and the bass will NEVER come in. It'll sound shrill with poor bass and the only way to make it sound decent at 47Kohms will be to rake the tonearm backwards (negative SRA!) in order to tame the highs. TEENAGE SUICIDE -- DON'T DO IT! Just put it at 60 or 100 ohms and enjoy the wonderful metamorphosis of cartridge break-in ;--)

Mark -- toldyaso ;--)

Jcarr, you're quite right re: the wire diameter used to wind the coil -- after all, the number of windings is directly proportional to the current produced when a coil is moved through a magnetic field. I only was using the impedance spec as a rough indicator of how much wire was actually in the coil (it's weight.) My assumption being that a cartridge maker would employ the thinnest wire he could possibly work with, in order to get the maximum number of turns with the minimum weight.

As for your comment about marketing speak, well say what you like, but the ring magnet concept eliminates several sound-degrading electomagnetic irregularities (as detailed in the above descriptions) that do not attend the ring design which has obvious advantages, both mechanically and electromagnetically. I think the advantages are a reality one can't reasonably avoid.

My contention/speculation or whatever you wish to call it, is that unlike the Colibris, UNIs, Allaerts, etc, the ring concept has a lot of room for refinement, and yet it's already neck and neck performance-wise with the (maxxed out, IMO) conventional designs.

As I stated somewhere earlier in this thread (and as Speedy just commented) I'm not about to put my W up for sale. First I want to sift (for authenticity) through the rave reviews we'll no doubt be hearing from some of our beloved early adopters. Then I'll decide if the Orpheus represents enough of an improvement, or if I should wait for the further development that will undoubtedly take place.

One thing is certain, I won't have egg on my face, or yokes on my tonearm ;--)
.

Speedy, I could go along with the O being a tweener marketing ploy if they were asking like DOUBLE the price of a V or W (remember the huge jump in price from an Airy 3 to a UNIverse?) but at a mere 20% more, no I think it's simply going to turn out to be 20% better -- which IMO (based on the already amazing performance of my W) will automatically put it out in front of the competition.

The only cartridge I'd currently cross a state line to hear is the Magic Diamond Blue, and the only person I know that uses one is Rushton. I don't know where he lives and his wife won't let him say ;--)

Jonathan, I wouldn't presume to question your historical perspective ;--) Though I've been intrigued with the MC cartridge (design) since the early seventies, I just can't recall which cartridge you're referring to that had an actual ring (doughnut?) magnet around the coil. (And wouldn't that require a rather long cantilever?)

For a long time, I thought the Colibri, with its ultra-short cantilever and no front pole was as far as the pole design would go, even if it meant settling for low output to get maximum benefit from the short cantilever. And along with the front/rear discs of the the Lyras, and the incredibly complex magnetic structure of the Dyna, represented three interesting variations on the pole design.

I've always assumed (am I wrong?) that a low coil resistance, assuming a given wire dia., is indicative of a coil with fewer windings and low(er) effective mass. So is there a flaw in my coming to the conclusion that the new Orpheus' (high-ish) output combined with its (low-ish) coil resistance means the magnetic field surrounding the coil must be extremely strong? I just can't understand how else those specs could be what they are.
.

Bc3 -- everything I've read about the Tranfg. coil former material speaks of a 35dB increase in sensitivity:

"Unique ultra grade SS-µ-metal core for coil assembly. Newly developed ultra grade SS-µ-metal square core increases sensitivity by 35dB, improving the signal to noise ratio and eliminating a usual source of distortion."

So far I've not read anything that indicates it actually increases the (voltage) strength of the output signal. Though I suppose a better S/N ratio might increase the "perceived" output?
.

Tim -- so are you saying we should keep our cartridges and spend the money on pot?

Speaking of "flowers on the windshield", I was out driving around with a stoner friend of mine the same night Loreena Bobbit decided to toss her husband's severed manhood onto the freeway.

Well wouldn't ya know, it hit our windshield, whereupon my hazy buddy turned to me and said, "MAN! Did you see the di*k on that bug!?"
.

Mark, I'd set it up as follows:

Tonearm dead level (parallel) to the platter for now. No sense trying to dial in the SRA until the suspension is broken in after at least 150 hours.

VTF 2.0 to 2.2g gms. It'll help limber up the suspension quicker and won't damage anything if you have an accurate scale. The Trannies have a push-pull suspension arrangement - which I presume means there's rubber on BOTH sides of the coil, not just the back -- I'm not exactly sure, but there's clearly more "squishing" to be done to break them in;--) After 100 hours, reduce it to 1.9, and leave it untill after 200 hrs, then readjust for max output: the name of the game IMO, when trying to find the best place in the VTF range, has to do with optimizing the position of the coil in the flux field. So there's no point getting too anal about it until the cart has around 200 hrs on it. After that, I listen to a 1000 Hz pure tone and go up or down (from the middle 1.9 in this case) until I think I'm getting max output (probably could use a meter for accuracy, but I'm lazy ;--)

Only minimum anti-skate for now, 1 gm or less. I wouldn't
use any horizontal silicon damping either, unless using a heavy tonearm. The O has low(ish) compliance, especially when new!

Loading should be good (for now) at 50 ohms. Theoretical optimum is 62.5 ohms. I've been working with Andrew (Aoliviero) who has a Triplanar, and just bought an O which he's running at 50 for now also, because the presets on his CAT preamp are at 50 and 100. It's better (easier to hear IMO) to start on the low side and add load, than to start high and reduce.
.

Mark, if your friend has a 60 ohm load preset on his phono preamp (Manley?) that should be ideal since it's only 2 ohms from the optimum (62.5) I'd start at 47 just for comparison purposes, but I think he'll be happiest (after break-in etc.) with 60.

Nobody I know who has experience w/ MC carts has ever found one to settle in before 100 hours min. regardless of the published numbers. Tranny V/W owners I know agree their carts took about 125 hours befor they stopped changing, although I acknowledge the first big bump is at about 50 or 60 hours. I don't know why the manufacturers are so sloppy about this. It's the same with their published load recommendations, except for van den Hul, who actually does give optimum load values for most of his carts.

Are you really going to leave while your electrician is working on your house? Is he a relative?
.

Speedy, well that's good news -- guess I better get my W on the block ;--)

I was quite interested by what you said about the Venustas tonearm cables. You see, mine belonged originally to Jim Aud himself, and were quite thoroughly broken in when I got them. So they sounded amazing to me from the start and have remained that way. Yet I've heard some less than enthusiatic comments here and there, and wondered just how long these babies really need to break in (without Cable Cooker help ;--) What do you think?

Doug, you have GREAT hearing! When will you be turning thirty?

Mark, my thinking about VTF is somewhat similar to my experiences with SRA: that it's difficult to find any two of the same model cartridge, that are identical in either of those characteristics.

You can physically see zero SRA, if you have the patience and tools, so no problem there. But with VTF, there is no practical way to "see" the coil's position with respect to the magnetic flux field. However, its (the coil's) optimum position can be inferred by measuring the cartridge's output for a given test tone at slightly different VTF settings.

I do it using the VU meter on my tape deck, which is not refined enough a tool to find the actual highest output point. So what I do is look for the VTF settings just above and just below the (assumed) optimum that yields the same meter setting.

So for the Tranny for instance, we assume the optimum VTF would be (theoretically) 1.9 gm, halfway between 1.8 and 2.0 gm, according to the manufacturer. So let's say you take a meter reading of a 1 kHz tone (Cardas record) at VTF 1.8 gm, and you adjust the meter to give a readable number like 0 VU. Then you increase the VTF ABOVE the optimum to where you again get 0 VU. Let's say that turns out to be 2.1 gm. The average (between 1.8 and 2.1) would be 1.95 gm. And at 1.95 gm, the meter should read slightly higher than 0 VU.

Even using this crude method, I determined my Tranny W had the most output at around 2.0 gm (with slightly less output just above or below) That was just after break-in, and I'm going to do it again just to see if anything's changed -- it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find it now requires a little less VTF.

Of course VTF also affects tracking, but I've always held that if a cartridge isn't tracking properly anywhere within its specified VTF range, something's not right with the setup or with the cartridge itself.
.

Mark, I can't seem to remember if you said what your initial impressions were of your V, but everyone including myself was a little surprised/disappointed with their Trannies at first, until after 50 hours or so. And it just happened again with someone else who purchased an O, so I'm not surprised your friend was underwhelmed ;--)
.

Andrew -- I'd love to be an audiophile fly on the wall at that pow wow. Better not say anything about it to Mehran @ Sorasound just yet ;--)

Speedy, RE the 47 ohm setting for the O: from all my polling of folks with Trannies (not yet the O of course) I've noticed that they all seem to settle on a load just a bit shy of the optimum theoretical load for their particular cartridge. I've been running at exactly the optimum for my W, but I'm going to drop it a bit and see what happens. I'll let you know.
.

Andrew, thanks for the report (so far.) I think you'll find that when fully broken in (125-150 hrs) you'll be able to lower the load on the O to a more permanent setting of 55 - 65 ohms while maintaining all the highs and picking up even more bass.

Additionally, when fully broken in, the compliance will be at its full spec'd value and then you'll be able to drop the VTF a tad, thus increasing detail while still maintaining good tracking. From what you're saying about the bass now, it should be just amazing in another 60 hours at a lower load.

Audiofeil - while you were "thinking out loud," you might have listed the the contents of your system along with any other (cartridges) you've owned/heard, thus giving the rest of us an opportunity to assess your cred. As it stands, your comments beg Mark's intelligence, which most of us know to be quite high.

Just thinking out loud of course ;--)
.

Before entering THIS fray, I'll get out my Trio and Sonic Fireworks Albums and listen to them with my lowly Temper W for the qualities Doug describes. In the meantime, and apropos of Doug's stratospheric hearing specs, I ran across this site from the University of New South Wales. All you need is a decent pair of headphones and sound card to test your own amazing hearing ;--):

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/hearing.html

Anyway, I'll listen to both albums as I stare hypnotically at a printout of Doug's comments, and compare my findings with his. Gosh, what if my W turns out to be better than Andrew's O!

This all puts me in mind of the composer Max Reger's reaction to a negative review­­: "I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me."

In Doug's system, Paul felt the VTA for the O was just right when the tonearm was moderately lower than parallel. Similar position used for the Universe.

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 . . . .

Dear raul: I agree with you too: there are no bad cartridges. Only voodoo science and pretzel logic ;--)

Neil
.

Dan, as I've already said, I'd really love to hear a UNI if there's anyone in Tucson or Phoenix who has one? Decently set up? Please, invite me over?

I still intend to listen (with my Temper W) to the critical passages Doug identified on the Trio and Sonic Fireworks albums. (I've pulled them out, so that's a start ;--)

But it's become quite consistant now, that every time I run across someone who says they prefer the sound of their LOMC at the 47K load impedance, I eventually discover they've set their stylus at < 1 degree SRA or even < 0 degrees SRA!

Chicken/egg-wise, the "47K" generally happens first. The person installs a brand new phono preamp out-of-the-box, which 90% of the time is set to a default 47K. Then they start playing records, and adjusting the tonearm (SRA) up and down 'til the treble stops shreiking, and lo and behold, the tonearm is tilted backward! I KNOW! I USED TO DO THE SAME THING MYSELF! In my youthful enthusiasm to "see how it sounds" and my youthful ignorance of the mechanical/electrical requirements that must be attended to first, I unwittingly put the cart before the horse. And thought I was soooo cool!

Moral of the story: while age alone is certainly no guarantee of wisdom, youth is attended always by a certain amount of ignorance ;--)
.

Doug:

Neil. I haven't checked other TriPlanars, but on this one a slightly tail down arm results in a parallel cartridge

Then I think you should send the whole TA back to Tri and have him check the headshell alignment. Something wrong with either the headshell or cartridge mounting hardware, perhaps the ZYX spacer plate.

slightly tail down arm results in // vertical SRA.

My SME is also tail-down with vertical SRA, but vertical SRA is not what we're after. So, once you found vertical SRA (as I explained elsewhere) then the TA post needs to go up about 6mm to achieve the nominal 1.5 degrees SRA. At that point the TA wand should be parallel, or even sligntly nose down.

Put another way, and assuming a proper undamaged 23 cm.TA: were I to mount a cartridge and set the TA for vertical SRA (using my scope and mirror) and then after raising the TA post 6mm (to get nominal 1.5 degree SRA) discover that the TA wand was still sloping backward, I would return the cartridge AS DEFECTIVE (stylus improperly mounted in the cantilever)!!

Intelligent mechanical design demands that tonearms (including unipivots and most straight line trackers) have their horizontal pivot axis ABOVE the stylus' point of contact with the record, and not below. This, along with the more recent move to underslung counterweights, insures mechanical stability of the entire system with respect to gravity (e.g. improving the ability to better track warped records ;--)

My point is, that after going through proper setup procedure, including the use of a scope and mirror to determine vertical SRA (THERE'S SIMPLY NO OTHER PRACTICAL WAY TO DO THIS AT HOME!) still, if by some ironic miracle, one wound up with the correct 1.5 degree SRA, yet the cartridge and/or arm were sloping backward, then the cartridge and/or arm would need checking and service because one or both of them are defective or damaged.

Frankly, I doubt there's anything wrong with either your arm or your cartridge, and I'd be more than happy to send you whatever tools you lack to carry out this VERY NECESSARY determination. Can you imagine trying to cut a record without watching the ENTIRE PROCESS through a microscope?

Personally, I've NEVER met a cartridge that needed to be raked backward to achieve proper SRA, or that sounded better that way . . . . . unless it was loaded at 47Kohms ;--)

.

Now now Doug, let's not get testy ;--) I never upstaged Mr. Risch, not that there's anything "pioneering" about his his method, or mine for that matter. Both are pretty much intuitively obvious to anyone with a mechanical bent. I simply offered a technique which proves more accurate and reliable when calibrating a cartridge setup, which BTW, I discovered years ago due to a separate interest in optics.

N
.

Doug, as a matter of fact, yes you do need some other (actually slightly different) tools. Loupes are out. Not strong enough and in any case too bulky to get their optics right in where you need them to be.

The 100x (pocket?) microscope is too strong (too small a field of view to see both the stylus AND its reflection easily) A 30x or (I prefer) a 50x scope is just about right as far as magnification goes. In addition, it has to be of a physical design that allows the objective to focus on the stylus without actually hitting the cartridge body. And it must be small enough in diameter to "find" the stylus in its optical axis without the barrel of the scope hitting the little mirror. This is a rather tall order, and I bought a half dozen scopes before I found one or two that I could use.

Also, bean bags are essential to get all the optics just right -- although a good strong Zip-lock filled with sand, salt or preferrably sugar (so you can suck any excess air out through a straw before sealing ;--) will work just fine as well. (see the pictures with my SRA post: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1140840022&read&keyw&zzsra)

I totally admit this procedure IS A HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS, TEDIOUS, AND FRAUGHT WITH DISASTEROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR DELICATE CANTILEVERS IF ONE DOES NOT KEEP THEIR WITS ABOUT THEM. But that's just the first time. (Unfortunately, by the SECOND time, you've probably forgotten all the little tricks you learned the first time!)

I've sent mirrors, scopes and even bean bags and Maglite to others who've had no touble using these techniques with great success (usually with a little telephone guidance from me.) So anyone who wants to borrow my stuff, just let me know.

N
.

Andrew,

I think you may have my comment about 47Kohm loading and negative SRA backwards. Let me explain it this way: If you have a MC cartridge at the correct SRA (stylus nicely locked into the forward-slanting groove undulations) and you set the load at 47Kohms, then you are feeding a perfectly wonderful signal (from the cartridge's output) into a perfectly horrible impedance mismatch. The effect of this particular kind of mismatch is to roll off the bass response more and more starting from about 1kHz on down -- leaving the highs (apparently) dominating.

Now, if you leave the load at 47Kohms, then the highs you are getting are essentially normal, but the bass is attenuated due to the impedance mismatch. The only way to (artificially) reduce those perfectly normal highs, so you can hear whatever piddling bass is still left after the impedance mismatch, is to severely disengage (unlock) the stylus from the groove, setting it to negative SRA in order to reduce the cartridge's HF output. And you wind up with a tonearm that slopes to the rear!

Talk about bassackward!!

47Kohms is ideal for MM cartridges. The Shure "V" series coils have an impedance of 1400 ohms! Times 25 that equals 37Kohms! So naturally a default preamp load of 47Kohms would make perfect sense. Similarly a little 2.5ohm MC coil only needs to "see" an impedance about 25 times its own resistance in order to transfer its energy. If you try driving a 47Kohm load with a MC, all those low frequency bass notes start to look like direct current at the preamp input and get dissipated as heat (if I still remember my electonic theory correctly ;--)
.

On 9/19 I posted, "I still intend to listen (with my Temper W) to the critical passages Doug identified on the Trio and Sonic Fireworks albums. (I've pulled them out, so that's a start ;--)" OK. So it's been a month. I'm finally listening (with my Temper W, not an Orpheus) to Trio and Sonic Fireworks Vol 1., a print-out of Doug's review in hand.

First, let me say that after re-reading Doug's description of the Orpheus' performance (or lack of it), I would not even put that cartridge in the same league as my Temper W. If my W performed that badly, it would be on its way back to the factory or in the trash! I'm quite comfortable that Doug's at least semi-rational, and not THAT biased, so I have to conclude that something, somewhere! was indeed very WRONG! But I have no idea what. . . .

TRIO:

Dolly, Linda, and Emmy Lou -- count 'em: 1, 2, and 3. All clearly separate entities, even in close harmony. All instruments present, accounted for, and quite articulate. TRIO is actually one of my "go to" records also, because it's so amazingly well engineered. If something in a system is not right, it's immediately obvious. Can't comment on the track skipping, my copy is flat.

SONIC FIREWORKS VOL 1

Bass response (22 cycle pipe organ "flutter") was clean and powerful through the Martin Logan Depth subwoofer. Perfectly damped. No bloom or bloat. Definitely not boomy or smeared.

In the Copeland "Fanfare", the cymbal decay reads right through the bass drum punctuations -- complete transparency. The kettle drum tunings were well rendered.

In short, I'm certain now that the Temper W's performance would have left Doug nothing to fault, at least so far as the specific items he mentioned. In addition the amazing soundstage and top to bottom ease of presentation from this (now second rate?) cartridge just seem to get better and better.

But I'd still like to hear a UNI. Anyone in Arizona?
.

Doug LOL (used Kleenix indeed!) And lest I gave anyone the wrong impression, I thoroughly enjoy reading M. Fremer's prose. It's almost always enjoyable -- like the "good" you feel when you STOP banging your head on the wall!
.

Thom, I'll raise you 20 and call it 100, but basically I think you're correct. Whether it's 80, 100, or 125 really depends on the cartridge's suspension material, the ambient temperature, and the VTF.

Speaking of VTF, I now recommend breaking in cartridges at about 10% more than their max. rated VTF (up to 100 hours or so) By doing this you won't hurt anything but you gain two things: First, the break-in may take a bit less time (which doesn't really matter a lot -- you're going to play records anyway ;--) but second, and much more important, is that if you want to finally run your cart at max VTF (which a lot of folks are beginning to think sounds/tracks best with MCs) then by overflexing the suspension just a wee bit in the beginning, you can be sure that it will be operating at its rated compliance, even at max VTF.

As for your second statement:

"I have never experienced a cartridge that didn't show its nature after 10 and wasn't stable (meaning substantially broken in) after 25."

I just can't agree with that. In fact, my experience has been the opposite, i.e. I've always been "dissappointed" with my (new) cartridges until right around 50 hours when they begin to change just enough that I realize they're not always going to sound like shreiking banshees!

All this could change (i.e. maybe NO break-in period) if/when better(?) suspension materials come along -- already, Transfiguration advertises that their new suspension material is impervious to changes in temperature and humidity.
.

Raul this is a little bit off-thread, but it's my thread, so what the hell?!

But I've been wondering: you try many many tonearm-and-cartridge combinations. So how do you remember from one to another so you can decide what you liked best? Do you make written notes? (I assume yes?) And what do you put in the notes (what qualities do you make notes about?)
.

Thom, I don't think anything is gained by taking an extreme opposite position just to make a point. Some examples you cite, the 400 hour speaker or the 20,000 mile Porsche break-in, the NUMEROUS? van den Hul trips across the ocean ;--); these are erroneous statements and suggest ridiculous extremes that will make even obsessive audiophiles giggle.

There are many areas in life that, finally, must be approached subjectively. There are many people who explain things they COULD understand with a little effort, but who prefer superstition -- that's why so many rabbits have only three feet! There are firm scientific underpinnings for many of the routine conventions that people follow in audio, particularly in vinyl analog setup an playback. Other procedures unfortunately are the result of taste, superstition, or one time anecdotal experience.

Unfortunately, separating the "lore" from the science is not easy, especially for the newcomers to audio, exposed as they are to ads, salesmen, reviewers, and worst of ALL, other audiophiles! who seem to speak with authority and experience, but who in fact are merely repeating unsubstantiated "lore." I'm not referring here to you, as I don't know you that well.

I think in the area of audio setup/adjustment, break-in, etc., it's a matter of scientifically measuring/determining exactly how much is required to do the job, AND WHY!! -- and then using procedures that are repeatable, and which provide useful results under a broad range of circumstances, conditions and equipment. To me, other approachs (other than that FINAL ear tweak, if one has the chops!) are subjective, even romantic, and therefore, ultimately impractical.

As for the "average break-in time for a cartridge" -- I don't understand what a statement like that refers to? Certainly not to all the different cartridges out there in the world! I think what most of us would agre about, and what was mentioned in previous posts, is a general consensus about what the range is at this moment in time, and also what happens during the process.

And the concensus is: somewhere between 80 and 100 hours with today's suspension materials. This concensus comes from many many pairs of ears. Some experiencing only one cartridge break-in period, others like Raul, experiencing dozens of different cartridges breaking in. And I'm sure any scientist with experience in elastomeric technology would have no trouble explaining these empirical results. I think cartridge manufacturers downplay the break-in time for the very (marketing) reasons you mention. And that's OK. I mean, it's baloney, but it's OK, because if you use your cartridge for an average hour and a half a day for a couple of months, it's gonna break-in, isn't it? And if your hearing is sensitive and/or trained, you will enjoy experiencing the metamorphosis.

Some folks open a bottle of fine wine and pour. Others like myself, know one should let it rest first, but like me, don't know how long or why. I should probably ask soneone what the concensus is (for how long) and later on, if I really get into it, I'll ask why, so I can make a more refined determination.
.

Since so many of my Agon friends are linked to this thread, rather than e-mailing you individually, I'm going to direct you to this Agon thread:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ymisc&1166674230&openfrom&1&4#1

where you can link to the (hilarious) film and read the posts as well ;--)

Happy Chrismaquanzuccah to all -- Neil
.

Speedy, I don't actually READ Stereophile anymore, maybe a page here and there. So when I read Rmaurin's post announcing Fremer's upcoming review, I was ernestly looking forward to the kind of specific point by point comparisons he made in his 2003 review of the Titan/TemperW/Audio Tekne. That was a truly informative piece, the kind that might make a reader to say to himself "I think I'm gonna try that one." (whichever one he decided).

In his current effort, I got the feeling he was writing a fictionalized account of an imagined review -- looks and tastes like information, but gosh, it's really just white noise. How many ways should I say disappointed?

These days, I learn more about equipment from the folks right here, where there are plenty of knowledgable people willing to candidly share their conclusions, with no concern for advertising revenue. And occasionally I even enjoy the ramblings of those who are disposed to speak from the other end of their food tubes ;--) BTW, please send nasty, and childish e-mails. I put them in cheap frames and hang them in the bathroom for -- stimulation ;--)
.

RE: M. Fremer Orpheus review in current StereoPile:

The man should get out of audio and go into politics. Just another limp-dicked please-everybody review. No mention of break-in time or load resistance values. And in a $100K TT/TA yet! Well, what did I expect . . . . . . . .
.

A, schmAy, whatever (and BTW, how come SP never tested a ZYX cart?) Here's a copy of an email I just sent my friend Tim:

I've not heard an Orpheus, but I love everything about my W,
and it does things all the things M. Fremer apparently forgot from his review of the W in June 2003 (which I have right here!)

As far as I can tell, he's a shameless dilettante like Jonathan Scull, (fraud alert!) and knows nothing about setting up a product for proper evaluation. My scientific background demands that rigorous experimental procedures be followed before any kind of critical listening can take place -- and that requires a lot more than just throwing a new out-of-the box cartridge into a $100K TT/TA.

I'm glad for the reviews and comments by the people on Audiogon. Even when somewhat biased towards a person's pet product, at least they come from real-world experience over a period of time. And if one has a question, the authors are quick and candid in their response. And it's free!

People like Fremer and Scull, are prose writers whose theme happens to be audio. They have no training in physics, acoustics, electrical engineering, or any of the other disciplines required to produce or evaluate audio equipment. They could just as easily (and unproductively) be writing about cars, or model trains. Who cares. . . . . . .

Doug, my point which I'm sure you understood, was that Fremer drew comparisons to Dynavector and Lyra without talking about maybe two or three other cartridges (ZYX being one) that should certainly be included in that group. Not that I felt his characterizations of the XV-1s or Titan-i probably count for anything anyway ;--)
.

Tim, you're right that was my point.

I have a question about this mono-LP/azimuth adjusting technique:

Do you set the preamp's mono/stereo selector switch to 'mono', or do you leave it on 'stereo' when making your adjustments?

.

Thanks all.

Neil
.

Speedy, the 7 or so people I've assisted in following my procedure for establishing zero SRA, have then set their stylus rake angle to a nominal 1.5 degrees (+/_ .20 degree) and found it to yield the best sonics achievable simply using measuring tools and mechanical adjustments. It is possible to refine the SRA (and the sonics) further on a record-by-record basis, the way Doug likes to do, however that requires you have a tonearm that permits easy SRA/VTA adjustments on-the-fly.

I don't have a tonearm that allows me that luxury-cum-obsession, however, it is possible to achieve almost the same results (as adjusting VTA on-the-fly) by increasing/decreasing VTF slightly:

If one normally runs their MC cartridge at the high end of the recommended VTF range say 2gms, then adding or subtracting 0.2 gms won't substantially alter the alignment of the coils in the flux field, but it will change the SRA by a tenth of a degree or more, for high compliance cartridges like van den Huls, somewhat less for Transfiguration, Dynavector, ZYX and other low-to-med compliance designs.
.

Doug, you and Andrew have Triplanar tonearms, so you can have perfect SRA at all times no matter the record thickness or the engineering preferences of the lathe operator. In any case, even .2gms wouldn't make enough of a difference with most of the top cartridges which are low(ish) compliance (except for vdH).
.

Doug's and Andrew's comments highlight my reason for advising folks to break in their cartridges slightly above (like .2 or .25 gms above) the high end of the specified VTF range:

That way the suspension will be flexed enough so you can be sure it will exhibit a stable coefficient of elasticity just beyond the top of the normal VTF range. If you don't do this, and you try to find the VTF "sweet spot" somewhere near max. VTF, you will have a hard time dialing it in.
.