Mijo, If I had a 10-inch bar, I would consider making porn movies. But I don’t want to store my meat in a vacuum. We had excellent take-out Chinese food last night at the home of a close friend.
Tomic, Thank you for the compliment re the Beveridges. I bought them about 6-7 years ago on a lark and based on my longstanding curiosity about them. I have nursed them through many teething problems, mostly in my case due to the amplifiers’ tendency to oscillate. I think I have solved the problems with my particular amplifiers long term, and I have always been happy I bought the speakers in the first place. For those who don’t know, the Beveridge Models 2 and 2SW are ESL-type panels that are very unique among ESLs in almost every aspect of their design. They are driven by Beveridge amplifiers that sit at the base of the speaker so that the speaker rests on top of its amplifier. There is no transformer in the signal path and no speaker wire at all, because of the direct connection. Also, unlike every other ESL I know about, there is no bias supply, because the diaphragms are held at zero volts and are conductive. The 2SWs are only good down to about 80Hz and require outboard woofer supplementation and of course an electronic crossover. For low bass, I use a pair of Transmission Line cabinets that I built in the 70s for KEF B139 woofers, driven by a 50W Threshold amplifier.
|
I really don’t know how anyone can evaluate such a co-dependent item as a tonearm out of the context of one’s own system or at least a system with which one is intimately familiar. But hey…
Listening to Eartha Kitt sing “Santa Baby”. Just sublime.
|
Mike, you didn’t lower the SPL around your TT. You identified some effective bandaids for the existing high SPL. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Happy holiday to all. I gotta go dig up my copy of Eartha Kitt singing “Santa Baby”.
It’s on a CD called Hipster’s Holiday.
Mike, I trust you’ll be able to find some Chinese food in New Hampshire tomorrow.
|
Funny story. To prove in principle that my contention he needed more gain in order to soothe his itch, I lent the owner of the Ypsi my own 25-year-old Quicksilver phonolinepreamp which is worth maybe $1200. I hooked it up in his system so the signal from the Ypsi passed through the Quicksilver linestage section and then to his amplifiers. In sum, he had a SUT of unknown turns ratio feeding the Ypsi which was feeding the Q. Results were dramatically better. He genuinely loved it. I keep the Q around for a spare and did not really want to sell it, but the point was made that he did not have to spend a fortune in order to add some gain via an active linestage. However, such is the cost conscious snobbery of high end-ism (more $ = better sound) that he replaced my Q with an albeit very fine VAC linestage costing him another $26K.
|
I’ve heard the Ypsilon in a system with which I was quite familiar, and I thought it was superb, but in comparison to other very expensive phono stages, one must keep in mind that it makes only 39db of gain. If you own a high end LOMC cartridge you must account for a SUT or an additional active gain device in the signal path. In fact even with a SUT, the owner of the Ypsilon had a complaint which I proved to him was due to an insufficient amount of total gain, for his Lyra Atlas SL. I convinced him to add an active linestage, and that made him happy (after he spent another $26K for the linestage).
|
To begin with, I rarely if ever listen to "popular music" from the 60s, 70s, and 80s on my audio systems, with the prominent exception of the Beatles and some others. But I do know what you are talking about due to my brief forays into that genre. A lot of that pop music we grew up with was meant to be heard on a car radio, preferably a convertible, preferably with a member of the opposite sex sitting in the passenger seat. I bought one of the re-issues of the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" on LP. On a good audio system, the tunes bear little resemblance to my aural memory of those tunes dating back to the 60s. It would not surprise me at all if hi-rez digital reproduction of some of that music would exceed vinyl in fidelity. I had a similar experience with a collection of Buddy Holly hits on a Classic Records LP and recently on a 4-LP set of Roy Orbison tunes (but I still love Roy). On the other hand, the best in-studio or on site jazz recordings were made with a very serious eye for fidelity by very knowledgeable engineers with very high end (for the times) equipment, and we are rewarded these days for their work. If you prefer hi-rez for that material, that is your personal choice to which you are entitled. I don't think re-mastering per se can restore what wasn't there in the first place. The very best re-mastering can only preserve what is there, and typically using tape sources that have aged. As regards the nature of the distortions you (and I) perceive, I don't think you are hearing "harmonic distortion" of high frequencies, because harmonics of high frequencies would be out of the range of your and my hearing, and because true harmonic distortion is not unpleasant and even hard to detect. LPs vary all over the place in their quality. In some cases, especially for classical orchestral or big band jazz recordings, there is a tendency for the sound of stringed instruments or of the brass instruments playing en masse to congeal and become shrill and unpleasant. One of the benefits of running so many turntables, using two systems, and having so many cartridges in so many tonearms, is that I can move an LP from one system to another in order to determine whether these distortions are on the LP or due to a shortcoming of one of the components in the reproduction chain at my house. The results can go either way. My own pet theory for what causes that occasionally shrill or congealed sound from massed instruments is a combination of cartridge mistracking and turntable speed instability due to variation in stylus drag. So, I also don't doubt that in a given instance, hi-rez digital could do better. And I use tube, hybrid tube/transistor, and all transistor phono stages.
|
"Another issue I am noticing frequently is on more recordings than not the space in between instruments and voices is quieter. Some would say "blacker" but, they really mean quieter. With analog playback there is more ...fuzziness around the edges of many recordings. On the other hand many of the older records were mastered on substandard systems resulting in amplitude and sound stage errors when played back on a good system. When that happens it is easy for the remasters to shine."
Are you here comparing old vinyl to new vinyl (re-issues) or hi-rez digital to vinyl, or what? The idea that "many of the older records were mastered on substandard systems" that result in "amplitude and sound stage errors" strikes me as not supported by any data. Just your aural impressions.
|
+1 for Raul reminding you guys that the cartridge per se does not have the job of conforming or not conforming to RIAA; it's obviously the combined effort of the recording engineer who applies the RIAA correction to the signal on the LP and then of the phono stage, which has to produce a flat frequency response by applying "reverse" RIAA.
If you read Peter Ledermann's statement and sentiments regarding RIAA and his strain gauge design, you will see that he recognizes there will be some lack of accuracy in exact conformation to RIAA, because he tells us that he did not put any corrective filtering into his downstream electronics, as apparently was done for some of the earlier strain gauge designs. That was his philosophical choice, because he feels that the filters do more harm than good. Anyone who is interested in the SG cartridge should listen first and then decide whether he or she likes the end result. In my opinion, there is no right or wrong here.
I get that the strain gauge type makes signal voltage in response to displacement of the stylus, rather than to velocity of the stylus. The RIAA pre-emphasis involves attenuating the bass response up to about 500Hz, with a 6db/octave slope. Then the frequency response is flat from 500 to about 2kHz. Then there is attenuation of the signal voltage from 2kHz and up with the same slope. All of our LPs have this deliberate RIAA frequency imbalance built into them. Putting these two bits of information together, I guess that SG cartridges must inherently make most signal voltage at low frequencies, the opposite of what happens with MM, MI, and MC cartridges, and that voltage then goes down as frequency goes up from bass to treble, in an approximate 6db/octave slope. In other words, the SG cartridges inherently correct for RIAA but apparently with some error with respect to the formal RIAA curve. One region where there would be error is that plateau between 500Hz and 2kHz; I expect the SG cartridge does not respect that flat area of the RIAA curve. Its response would just sail through that region rising at 6db/octave. So if one heard a "problem", I would not be surprised if it is in the midrange. But also, if the slope of the response of an SG cartridge from low bass to extreme treble deviates from 6db/octave, that too could result in an apparent RIAA error. Raul and PL had a vigorous discussion of these issues, I think to be found on the famous MM cartridge thread started by Raul. I agree with whoever said that one ought to judge the results for onesself. It would be interesting to commpare the SS version of SG with one of the older designs that did incorporate RIAA correction filters in the downstream black box.
|
SOTA reflex clamp works by gripping any spindle when the lever is pushed down and locked.
|
You could use a lightweight clamp (not a "weight" per se) on a Rega, without violating the gospel according to Gandy.
|
Edgewear, Your list of cartridges you've owned is pretty close to my list of cartridges I would like to hear. Specifically the Transfig Proteus and the two Ortofons. At the risk of blasphemy, I'd like to compare them to my favorite MI cartridges from days of yore, as well as to the lesser expensive LOMCs I do own, like the MC2000, MC7500, Koetsu Urushi, AT ART7, ZYX UNIverse. (Yeah, I guess owning those disqualifies me from total cheapskatehood.) I've been looking for a nice used Proteus, in fact, since they've gone out of production.
|
edge, I own both of those, too. However, as a verifiable "cheapskate", I have never stepped up to purchase a modern cartridge that is acknowledged to be top rung. For that reason, I cannot claim to know how the current state of the art would compare to the MC2000 or even to my favorite MI type cartridges. I own some near SOTA cartridges but none that is really at the top. Raul does have such listening experiences, on the other hand. So I am not about to contradict his apparent conviction that we have come a long way. (I do ask myself the question how much better can a >$10,000 cartridge get, compared to the ones I like best in my systems.) For sure, the commercial sector wants us to believe that the trend is ever onward and upward. Like you, I expect its more horizontal with little ticks upward every once in a while.
I just read the specs of the Verisimo. I wonder why they quote lateral, rather than vertical, compliance. I do believe that a major virtue of the MC2000 is its high vertical compliance. The data on the Verisimo do not permit a direct comparison of compliance parameters.
|
I would love to hear or even read about a head to head comparison between the MC2000 and the Verissimo. Not at all because I dream the MC2000 is better but only because that would be a great way to dissect out the improvements that nearly 30 years of tinkering have wrought. It would have to be done on top of the line equipment and using the exact same devices (tonearm, turntable, phono, etc) in each case. If I could not be present myself, it would be great to have the evaluations of 2 or 3 experienced listeners. MF is in a position to do these sorts of comparisons, but he probably wouldn’t, because of vested financial interests. The trick would be to find a mint NOS MC2000. For that matter, the comparison could be done with any of several of the many models that lie chronologically between the MC2000 and the Verissimo. Raul has already intimated that the A95, Anna, and Verissimo are quite different sounding, one from the other. Yet they are only separated by a couple of years of development.
|
And yet, some of those verboten match-ups would work fine in actual practice.
As regards Raul's last post, the Ypsilon, which is indeed a very transparent phono stage, one of the best I have heard, makes only 39db of gain, which is barely enough for even some low output MM or MI cartridges. So to use the Ypsi with a LOMC cartridge, you have to figure in a SUT. That's a $30K phono stage that needs a SUT.
|
The belt drive analog of that philosophy is also coupling a very weak motor to a very heavy platter, first done by both Walker Audio and Nottingham Analog. There is a stock argument against that approach, but I don't pretend to know whether it holds water or whether the weak motor/heavy platter is wonderful. Enjoy it if you got it.
I agree with Raul. The argument about active devices and noise makes no sense to me. Any phono stage must develop lots of gain in order to amplify the very low amplitude voltage signal from a cartridge. This can ONLY be done with active devices, or did you plan to build a phono stage with passive components only? The trick is to minimize the noise while realizing the gain. Different designs do it differently and with more or less success.
|
terry, But you want the motor to affect speed, when the speed drifts away from constancy. So, in your first paragraph, are you making a virtue or a problem out of "torque". I am not sure what you meant. Could be you are saying that to couple a low torque motor with a heavy platter is a good thing, because speed in such a design is primarily maintained by the rotational inertia of the heavy platter. That idea has its advocates and its detractors, as well. What is remarkable is that so many different seemingly conflicting design philosophies can be made to "work" such that the end users come to swear by this or that approach.
|
Here is a bad thing about a spring-suspended DD turntable: The energy put into rotation of the platter is also going to twist the chassis on its suspension, in the direction opposite to platter rotation (counter-clockwise). That is why it’s a good thing the Motus uses a low torque motor. Even so, the platter might end up with a very inconstant speed, due to the servo trying to correct for twisting combined with the variable effects of stylus drag on the rotation of the platter. Has anyone published a study of the speed constancy of the Motus? I am all for isolating TTs, but not with springs. As to low torque vs high torque (without defining the terms, the two statements are meaningless), torque only comes into play when the platter is starting up from rest. Once the platter is rotating at or near its set speed, torque is neither a good nor a bad thing, so long as there is enough to tweak the platter speed when called upon by the servo. What does make a difference is the "tightness" of the servo control. Different designers have adopted different levels of stringency for speed control. Technics TTs historically (I don’t know about the SP10R) adopted a very tight feedback. Other vintage DD turntables used looser servo control, especially those that also used coreless motors, like the L07D, the Pioneer Exclusive, and the Yamaha GT2000(X).
Mijostyn, Your categorical dismissal of the Lenco is silly. True, the bone stock OEM Lenco GL75 or 78 can be bested by modern turntables, but not by any belt driven turntable below the $2500 or so retail cost, provided only that the tonearm is refurbished or replaced by a better one, and highly modified Lencos that still retain the motor and the vertical idler drive mechanism would surprise you, if you ever sought out a sample to listen to. Visit Lenco Heaven to learn what can be done on a relatively limited budget with Lenco parts.
Something that Raul wrote that wasn’t "wrong" has been misinterpreted by subsequent comments. More mass per se does not result in a higher resonant frequency; it’s just the opposite. I think what Raul meant is that more platter mass on an air suspended turntable requires more work by the air suspension which could result in an increase in the absolute magnitude of the resonance. I don’t know if that’s been proven, but it makes some sense.
|
